Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to speak to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. Since 9/11, we have made significant progress in bolstering the defense of our Nation against terrorism. Today, Americans are safer than they were just 5 years ago. However, as we learned from the recently released National Security Estimate, the threat of terrorism continues. As a border State and a major thoroughfare for trade, Washington State faces incredible security challenges. Along our northern border, official checkpoints are separated by miles of vast, rural and rugged terrain The Ports of Seattle and Tacoma make up the Nation's third largest container center. Puget Sound is home to America's largest ferry system, transporting more than 26 million passengers and 11 million vehicles annually throughout the area. The Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 provides vital resources to build on the progress we have made to make our Nation more secure and citizens safer. It contains specific provisions that I am very proud to have worked on--provisions that I believe make a strong bill even stronger. I will speak about those provisions in just a moment, but first, I want to take a moment to acknowledge the steadfast leadership and stalwart dedication of the bill's managers, Senator Gregg and Senator Byrd. This bill recognizes that as a Nation, we still need to make serious investments in our National security. That is why we're adding significant resources--more than $21 billion--to better secure our borders. This includes $2.2 billion to add 1,500 agents to monitor and apprehend criminals--criminal or people crossing the border--and $1.4 billion for detention facilities, including nearly 7,000 additional detention beds to end our failed ``catch and release'' policy. Using cutting edge technology is critical to securing our 4,000-mile- long northern border. With vast, rural and rugged terrain, physical barriers provide limited benefits along much of the northern border. The right tools can provide critical intelligence about areas that have previously gone unsecured for so long. This legislation includes a provision, which I offered with Senator Baucus, directing the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Federal Aviation Administration to test the use of unmanned aerial vehicles on the northern border. UAVs with extended range can conduct prolonged surveillance sweeps over remote border areas, relaying information to border agents on the ground. This will modernize our patrol capabilities and enable us to reach hundreds of miles of previously unguarded border. It is time to get serious, smart and practical by using the best proven resources out there. I have also sponsored a provision included in this legislation directing the Department of Homeland Security and State Department to work with Canadian officials and State and local first responders to identify border security challenges--including interoperable communications--in preparation for the 2010 Olympics. Lastly, I was proud to join Senator Feinstein to secure a provision criminalizing the construction of smuggling tunnels under our borders and putting into law stiff penalties for anyone building or using such tunnels. In July 2005, we discovered a smuggling tunnel between Canada and Washington State. It had been used to traffic drugs, but it's all too clear that tunnels could just as easily be exploited by terrorists to enter undetected into our country. The legislation before us also provides more than $4.3 billion to improve the security of our ports and the global supply chain. This includes: More than $2 billion to the Coast Guard; $210 million in port security grants; $420 million for radiation and gamma ray inspection equipment for scanning cargo containers; and nearly $200 million to screen cargo containers at foreign ports and collaborate with private entities to enhance supply chain security. Focusing on security where cargo is loaded abroad, at the point of origin, is vital to achieving security for our ports here at home. I am proud to have cosponsored a provision with Senators Coleman and Schumer, included in this legislation, which directs the Department of Homeland Security to test a new integrated container inspection system at three foreign ports. This technology has already shown promise at the Port of Hong Kong. And I believe that testing this system is the next important step to move us toward 100 percent screening of containers. From our borders to our ports, this legislation also represents a significant investment in the security of our transportation systems. In light of the foiled terrorist operation in the U.K. on August 10, I remain especially concerned about aviation security. As we all now know, a network of terrorist cells planned to down as many as 10 U.S. airliners by smuggling liquid explosives onto flights. The foiled plot provides a stark reminder of the serious gaps which continue to impede our efforts to secure the commercial airline industry. In 1994, we learned the dangers of our inability to screen passengers for liquid chemicals that could be combined to create an improvised explosive device, when Ramzi Yousef successfully bombed Philippines Airline flight 434. In 1995 they uncovered the infamous ``Bojinka'' plot in Manila. Yet more than 10 years later, we still have not developed a technology that can be deployed in airports to screen passengers for these substances. To fix this, we need to make a strong investment in research and development. The Senate version of this legislation--which passed before the August U.K. terrorist threat--had only $5 million slated for research and development of explosive countermeasures, under the Science and Technology directorate at the Department of Homeland Security. After the Senate returned from August recess, I wrote to Chairman Gregg requesting that he work in conference to increase funding for explosive detection research under the Science and Technology directorate. The conference report before us today includes nearly $87 million in explosives research funding and I want to thank Senator Gregg for working in conference to accommodate this request. The explosives detection problem is both urgent and technically challenging. Passenger screening technology must be efficient, reliable, and effective. The latest threats make it clear that we need to accelerate our work to find innovative solutions to evolving challenges. We must be smart and tough in our fight against global terrorism. Our first priority must be ensuring that Americans are safe. We have come a long way since 9/11. We have worked hard and made progress and we are safer today. But it is clear: We need to do more to stop terrorists and their schemes. We can't let down our guard--at our borders, at our ports, on our passenger planes. The legislation before us today builds on progress we have made and delivers strong and serious investments so we can do even more. Americans deserve to know that we are doing everything we can to secure our country and keep them safe. Again, I want to thank the managers of this bill for their efforts. I look forward to working with them as we continue fighting to secure our Nation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. I am delighted to have Senator Murray, Bingaman, and Mikulski introduce this bill with me today. As health insurance costs continue to rise and the number of employers that offer health coverage to their employees decline, our safety net programs are all the more critical, especially for the health of our children. It is more important than ever to sustain existing health care coverage for our children--and, in fact, to expand it. It's the best way to reduce costs and improve access. It's about keeping children healthy. New Census data released last month showed that the number of uninsured has grown from 41.2 million in 2001 to 46.6 million in 2005. These are largely working families--the number of fulltime workers without any insurance increased to 17.7 percent in 2005 from 16.8 percent in 2002. In Washington, our Medicaid program is currently providing coverage for more than 500,000 children. Our State Children's Health Insurance Program is providing coverage to another 11,000 children. But 100,000 of our kids in Washington State remain uninsured even though they are eligible for one of the public programs. One barrier to expanding kids' access to health care in Washington is the funding rules that were put into place when SCHIP was enacted in 1997. In short, our state has been punished for its early innovation for doing the right thing. When SCHIP was enacted at the Federal level in 1997, Washington was one of only four States already providing health coverage for children at the level Federal lawmakers wanted SCHIP to reach. Under the original Federal rules, Washington was not allowed to use new funds to pay for children who were covered prior to SCHIP's implementation. As a result, we have been penalized and prevented from fully using our share of the funding. That is why in 2002 I worked to ensure a temporary fix to the funding inequity and I have been fighting to make this fix permanent ever since. And as a result of these temporary fixes, Washington has been able to extend coverage to an additional 60,000 children and reinvest $47.3 million in children's health safety net programs. Despite this success, the State has still been forced to return over percent of its share of Federal funding. Over the first decade of the SCHIP program, Washington is expected to return $191 million in Federal funds. Let me say that again: we're returning millions of dollars to the Federal Government and we still have 100,000 uninsured children in our State--the majority of whom are eligible for these public programs. It's unacceptable and it runs contrary to the central goal of the SCHIP program. We need a permanent solution once and for all so that Washington and the other States that expanded eligibility in their Medicaid programs before the enactment of SCHIP in 1997 are no longer penalized for their early innovation and their commitment to the health of children. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. This legislation will give states the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use their entire SCHIP funds allotment to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the state. The bill also ensures that all of the qualifying States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. Finally, this bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. The requirements are best practices that have been tested and proven all across our Nation: a simplified application process, twelve-month continuous eligibility and easy access to enrollment staff are just a few of the examples of actions that we have taken in Washington that are proven to work. They result in more children having coverage and accessing appropriate care. Many of our States are working to make the program easier for children and families to navigate and now Congress needs to make it easier for all States to access their SCHIP allotment in order to expand and improve coverage to our youngest citizens. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. With the rising number of uninsured and the ever-increasing healthcare costs, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. Removing barriers for innovative states and allowing them to fully access their SCHIP allocation is a major step in achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. I am delighted to have Senator Murray, Bingaman, and Mikulski introduce this bill with me today. As health insurance costs continue to rise and the number of employers that offer health coverage to their employees decline, our safety net programs are all the more critical, especially for the health of our children. It is more important than ever to sustain existing health care coverage for our children--and, in fact, to expand it. It's the best way to reduce costs and improve access. It's about keeping children healthy. New Census data released last month showed that the number of uninsured has grown from 41.2 million in 2001 to 46.6 million in 2005. These are largely working families--the number of fulltime workers without any insurance increased to 17.7 percent in 2005 from 16.8 percent in 2002. In Washington, our Medicaid program is currently providing coverage for more than 500,000 children. Our State Children's Health Insurance Program is providing coverage to another 11,000 children. But 100,000 of our kids in Washington State remain uninsured even though they are eligible for one of the public programs. One barrier to expanding kids' access to health care in Washington is the funding rules that were put into place when SCHIP was enacted in 1997. In short, our state has been punished for its early innovation for doing the right thing. When SCHIP was enacted at the Federal level in 1997, Washington was one of only four States already providing health coverage for children at the level Federal lawmakers wanted SCHIP to reach. Under the original Federal rules, Washington was not allowed to use new funds to pay for children who were covered prior to SCHIP's implementation. As a result, we have been penalized and prevented from fully using our share of the funding. That is why in 2002 I worked to ensure a temporary fix to the funding inequity and I have been fighting to make this fix permanent ever since. And as a result of these temporary fixes, Washington has been able to extend coverage to an additional 60,000 children and reinvest $47.3 million in children's health safety net programs. Despite this success, the State has still been forced to return over percent of its share of Federal funding. Over the first decade of the SCHIP program, Washington is expected to return $191 million in Federal funds. Let me say that again: we're returning millions of dollars to the Federal Government and we still have 100,000 uninsured children in our State--the majority of whom are eligible for these public programs. It's unacceptable and it runs contrary to the central goal of the SCHIP program. We need a permanent solution once and for all so that Washington and the other States that expanded eligibility in their Medicaid programs before the enactment of SCHIP in 1997 are no longer penalized for their early innovation and their commitment to the health of children. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act of 2006. This legislation will give states the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use their entire SCHIP funds allotment to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the state. The bill also ensures that all of the qualifying States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. Finally, this bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. The requirements are best practices that have been tested and proven all across our Nation: a simplified application process, twelve-month continuous eligibility and easy access to enrollment staff are just a few of the examples of actions that we have taken in Washington that are proven to work. They result in more children having coverage and accessing appropriate care. Many of our States are working to make the program easier for children and families to navigate and now Congress needs to make it easier for all States to access their SCHIP allotment in order to expand and improve coverage to our youngest citizens. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. With the rising number of uninsured and the ever-increasing healthcare costs, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. Removing barriers for innovative states and allowing them to fully access their SCHIP allocation is a major step in achieving this goal. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Jewish New Year is a time for celebration, prayer, and reflection. As friends and family commemorate the high holy days which begin tomorrow evening, Jewish communities across Washington State and around the world will come together, consider the past, and look to the year ahead. Rosh Hashanah brings new beginnings and new energy; Yom Kippur calls for atonement and forgiveness. These ideals extend beyond religion or race--they build common ground and inspire shared sacrifice. All of this was threatened by an act of senseless violence and hate this summer in Seattle. We cannot give in to that hate. During these days of repentance and renewal, I share a commitment to ending violence and to living with one another in peace both around the world and here in our own communities. Yet we are still shocked and saddened by the pain and loss of July 28, 2006, when a gunman driven by hate, forced his way into the offices of the Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle. He killed one woman and wounded five others before surrendering to police. Our community tries to recover, but we are stunned. The King County Prosecutor said: ``Make no mistake, this was a hate crime.'' I mourn the loss of Pamela Waechter, a beautiful woman and warm spirit who lost her own life while trying to improve the lives of others. All across Washington State we have been asking the same questions. How could such an event happen in our community? How could such violence be carried out in our city in the name of hate? There is never any justification for a hate crime, anywhere. That this horrific crime took a life so suddenly and so uselessly is a tragedy for all of Seattle. We must recommit ourselves to the goal laid out by Rabbi Mirel. He said: ``Hatred will not be our legacy.'' We must do more, both as a national community and as individuals, to recognize the brutality of this crime and to respond to this terrible event. And we must do more to demonstrate that the only kind of intolerance Americans will abide is an intolerance for short-term answers and shortsighted conclusions. Pamela Waechter, who was killed in July, set an example for us all through her involvement in the Seattle community. She moved to Seattle in 1979. After raising two children, Pamela became a student at the University of Washington and graduated with a degree in nutrition. Pamela worked at Jewish Family Service and later at the Jewish Federation, where she did outreach and fundraising. She rose from secretary to two-term president at Temple B'nai Torah. Pamela stood out in her dedication, and brought the diverse people of this city together across boundaries of ethnicity or religion. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. We honor their spirit during these Days of Awe by celebrating their deeds, pursuing peace, and seeking renewal.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the Port Security Act of 2006, the underlying bill we are discussing in the Senate here this afternoon. I want to start by commending the steadfast dedication of my colleague, Senator Murray, from the State of Washington, and Senator Collins for their hard work in moving this legislation through the Senate, and certainly Senator Stevens and Inouye for their leadership on this issue. I want to say that Senator Murray has done great work both here in Washington, DC, and at home in the State of Washington to close security gaps. And I have enjoyed working with her to make sure that our ports in Washington State are more secure. Port security ought not to be an afterthought or an extra security measure when we are talking about securing our borders or securing our communities. It should be one of our key priorities. Washington State knows how critical these ports are to our economy and to our way of life. There are ports all along our shore lines from Seattle to Vancouver, Bellingham, and other cities. They create jobs. They drive economic growth for the entire northwest. And in the Seattle-Tacoma area, the ports are the third-busiest in the Nation, with over 11,000 containers passing through Seattle and Tacoma daily. That's more than 4 million containers a year. That is more than 100,000 workers in the Puget Sound area including longshoremen and freight forwarders and others who depend on the ports of Seattle and Tacoma for their jobs. And certainly they want to see them safe and secure. Last year the ports of Seattle and Tacoma combined to move more than $45 billion in revenue from imports and $12 billion in U.S. exports. But these are not just the homes--these ports--to international trade. Puget Sound is also the home to America's largest ferry transportation system, with more than 26 million passengers and 11 million vehicles traveling throughout Puget Sound and to and from British Colombia. Despite these numbers of trade and economic development and of passenger movement and cargo container movement, there are still clear vulnerabilities. For too long, too little has been done, I believe, to protect our ports and to improve the protections on our ferries. This bill will take a step forward on both of those issues. Right now we are inspecting the contents of less than 3 percent of the more than 6 million containers entering our country each year. Most of this inspection occurs after the container is off loaded and sitting on the docks of a U.S. port. The reality is that by then it is too late. And so working on point-of-origin issues is very important as my colleagues, Senators Murray and Collins understand. The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, which Senators Coleman and Levin lead, issued a report in March that stated we are only inspecting 0.34 percent of all containers destined for the United States overseas and of those that were considered high-risk containers, we are only inspecting about 17.5 percent. Given this low inspection rate, it is really no surprise that each year we find illegal immigrants stowed away on cargo containers destined for the United States. This spring, 22 Chinese stowaways were apprehended at the Port of Seattle. So if illegal immigrants know that they have a good shot at entering the United States in cargo containers because of our failure to inspect the contents, it ought to be no great leap of imagination to expect that terrorist organizations might also have the same idea. In fact, the C.I.A. has reported that a weapon of mass destruction is most likely to be delivered in the United States by a cargo container entering a seaport. But the problems extend beyond our failure to inspect cargo. We have no standards for container locks and seals. We have inadequate funding for critical research and development of screening technology. We have no international security standard for conducting terror and background checks on port workers. That is why, again, the point-of-origin issue and working internationally is so important. The accuracy of cargo manifest information submitted to customs is also a major problem, especially when we're using this information as part of a system--the Automated Targeting System or ATS--to identify high-risk cargo. We recently, at the Port of Seattle had this made clear to us. That is when in August, Customs identified two suspicious containers and set them aside for inspection. They thought that there were things contained in there that bomb-sniffing dogs detected were explosives. Thankfully for us in the Puget Sound area, it was a false alarm. But it made all too clear the potential for disasters at our ports with today's standards. With the high risk of terrorists placing weapons of mass destruction in containers during transit, we need to begin securing container doors with tamper-proof locks and seals, instead of what we are doing today, which sometimes can often be just a 10-cent zip lock or the equivalent. Many containers are filled with cargo from more than one source, which also makes this transfer and tracking challenging. In fact, during a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, the CEO of the Port of Seattle, Mic Dinsmore, put it this way--quote--``as ships make its way to the U.S., it might well stop at several other ports. Throughout this process, at least seven different handlers may have access to the containers before it even arrives in the United States. Every stage in the supply change creates additional hurdles for monitoring this cargo.'' That's why we need to make improvements as this legislation does, to improve the systems that hold the shippers accountable for accurate information like is required under the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism. C-TPAT is a good start. But as has been reported, there is more to be done, particularly validating the participants of this program. Senator Murray has been a leader in this area in working with Operation Safe Commerce, a program to identify ways to better secure the supply chain, including cargo containers. But these threats are real, and we can't wait any longer. This legislation makes important critical improvements to the current regime. It authorizes $400 million for port security grants and it makes improvements to the Container Security Initiative, a program that is important right now for inspecting cargo, as I said, at the point of origin; and with the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism program, the public-private initiative that secures that supply chain. This legislation directs the department to establish minimum standards for container security, and it authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to accelerate the deployment of radiation detection equipment. It also authorizes the testing of systems to improve scanning of containers overseas. To make this possible, I was proud to cosponsor this legislation earlier this summer in directing the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a pilot program where we have seen at the Port of Hong Kong good result from this technology that I think will help us move closer to our goal for 100 percent container inspection. Now, this pilot program is just initiated at three foreign ports, and we will need to work hard at expanding it. This underlying bill also includes language to us in improving the screening for our ferry systems in Washington state, particularly those coming into the United States from Canada. Right now some ferry runs from Canada aren't being screened for explosives before departing for the United States. In an F.B.I. Report in 2004, the National Threat Assessment named vehicle- borne explosives as the type of weapon that al-Qaida would most likely use for a maritime attack. The lack of explosives screening not just impacts the passengers on board the ferries, but those communities and coastal regions where this ferry transportation exists. That's why this inclusion in the underlying bill is so important for us in the northwest. To build on many of the other critical provisions in this bill, there are two amendments that I offered that were included. The first would improve inspection of foreign ports, the point of origin for cargo entering the United States. The U.S. has an obligation to ensure that our international strict security standards and a way to enforce them. We're only going to be as safe as the inspection process that our foreign partners implement. The Coast Guard is authorized under the Maritime Transportation Security Act to conduct inspections of foreign countries and their ports to validate their compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security code, ISPS. Currently the Coast Guard only has 34 inspectors as part of the agency's international port security program to review the more than 140 countries that are shipping cargo to the United States. To date the Coast Guard has only been able to inspect ports in about 59 out of those 140 countries. We need to reinforce this relationship. We need to maintain a standard with these foreign governments, these ports, these private sector entities to ensure that we have adequate intelligence and security measures and that they are in place before these ships heave and are destined for the United States. That is why I am proud to sponsor an amendment with Senator Snowe, the chairwoman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee that would authorize the Coast Guard to add additional personnel to complete the inspection of foreign ports by the end of 2008 and maintain a 2-year cycle for reinspection. Currently the Coast Guard maintains a reinspection cycle about every 4 to 5 years, so this basic step, I believe, is critical to gathering adequate information--gathering adequate information about cargo entering the United States before it reaches our ports. It also helps us identify countries who are not compliant with International standards and helps us identify those high-risk vessels and cargoes. But we have to also improve at home our ability to scan for those containers that are going to be loaded onto rail cars. So the second amendment, that I am glad that the managers of this underlying package have accepted, directs the Department of Homeland Security to establish an Intermodal Rail Radiation Detection Test Center and test technology that can scan containers on rail for radiation. Now, currently, the U.S. Customs officials do not scan containers that are loaded directly on to rail. For us in the Pacific Northwest, this is an important issue since so much of our cargo comes through our Ports and onto rail systems and is then moved throughout the United States. Though scanning containers transported on rail cars does present a formidable challenge, we must step up to that challenge. The 2006 Government Accountability Office report on combatting nuclear smuggling stated ``to speed seaport development and to help ensure that future rail deployments proceed on time, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security in cooperation with the Commissioner of C.B.P. develop procedures for effectively screening rail containers and implementing new technologies to facilitate this.'' Just a few weeks ago, I had a chance to tour the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, WA, where they are teeming with customs and--teaming with customs and border protection to develop and test this technology to scan rail transport containers for radiation. Many container ports and transport--container ports and transport companies are moving to on-dock rail systems to reduce the costs and improve efficiency and lessen the Environmental impact of using trucks. So more and more of the container business is moving towards rail. For example, the Port at Tacoma helped lead the way in this transition as the first port in the U.S. to develop an on-dock intermodal rail yard. So today, approximately 72 percent of the cargo arriving at the Port of Tacoma is transported by rail directly from the terminal. So we want to make sure that there is a screening process available that will help us make sure that the United States in cargo rail-transported shipments are more secure. This underlying language in the bill will help us get the right technology test done and the right deployment of the technology. Since 9/11 we have taken many steps to enhance security infrastructure of our seaports, but further improvements can and must be made. We know the challenges that are facing us, and we know what would happen if a terrorist struck our ports. Millions in my State live, work, and commute around Puget Sound. Many are mere yards from the port, making it a very devastating impact on the populace of Puget Sound. If such an environmental disaster would happen. And the economic impact, I should say, would also be disastrous. We saw in 2002, when the west coast had a closure of a few of our ports, it cost our national economy $1 billion a day. So the Ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, Everett and our other major ports are gateways to supplies and products corning to the entire Nation through the State of Washington. Without them, everything from jobs, productivity and economic growth slows down or stops. By making a real commitment to improving security at our ports and the cargoes that move throughout our country, we will have a more secure Nation. We will create jobs and a faster economic growth for the entire country. So I want to commend the managers of this legislation for their commitment in moving this legislation at this time and continuing to push on this difficult task. But I also want to remind my colleagues, as one port security expert said, Stephen Flynn of the Council on Foreign Relations--quote--``We are living on borrowed time.''--So I believe the measures in this Port Security legislation are long overdue, and I hope my colleagues work to see it passed this afternoon. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, five years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, we still feel the pain and loss of that terrible day. We will always honor the memory and spirit of those who lost their lives and those who gave their lives for others. Our Nation's most enduring values were attacked on that day. We have a responsibility to those who died, to their families, and to the first responders who answered the call of duty without hesitation, to never forget and to never let this tragedy be repeated. Together we have a responsibility to all Americans to keep our Nation secure and our citizens safe. Yet, 5 years after our cities were attacked, America is still not as secure as it should be. We must take the hard lessons from that devastating attack and confront the new challenges of a changing world. We must continue fighting for the tough, smart policies that will make our communities safer. We have a lot of work ahead of us. Our vast transportation systems remain vulnerable. Our borders are porous. To protect America, we must secure our ports, improve intelligence oversight, share information effectively, and allocate resources based on risk. We must fully implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations, improve nuclear material tracking, and strengthen our diplomacy around the world. We must deliver better support to our first responders to help them do their jobs. In the aftermath of September 11, our Nation came together. Five years later, we must remember those we have lost, their courage and brave spirits, and once again, move forward together to better protect our communities and defend the freedom we cherish.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. Before I make my statement, I want to take a moment to thank Chairman Stevens and Senator Inouye for their leadership in getting this vitally important defense appropriations bill to the Senate floor. I know that that the chairman and ranking member believe, as I do, that ensuring sufficient funding for our brave fighting men and women during this incredibly challenging Iraq war is an urgent national priority. I appreciate their hard work and look forward to making sure we complete work on this legislation before the end of the fiscal year. Today, I am here to speak on another issue critical to Washington State, and many States throughout the Nation: the threat of wildfires. To date, we are in the midst of the most active fire year of the decade. That may surprise many of my colleagues who remember the devastating fires a few years ago. But as of today, more than 8.4 million acres have burned as a result of 84,000 fires across the Nation this year. To put this year into perspective--compared to the 10-year national average, this year 73 percent more acres have already burned. Already, this is the third worst fire year since 1960. As we speak, our brave wildland firefighters across the Nation are fighting 62 wildfires that have burned more than 1 million acres and continue to burn in 11 States. Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming all have active fires that have burned at least 25,000 acres. In my State, Washington, an area nearly half the size of Rhode Island is ablaze. More than 309,000 acres have burned in Washington State as a result of 13 active fires. The largest fire in Washington, the Tripod Complex Fire, has burned 163,000 thousand acres. In Southeastern Washington, residents and farmers alike have been dealing with and fighting the Columbia Complex Fire. That fire has burned more than 90,000 acres--including some homes and valuable wheat crops--forcing the evacuation of hundreds of Columbia County residents in and around the city of Dayton during the last month. Fighting these fires has truly been a national priority and I want to thank all of the firefighters, soldiers, local and State officials, and many others who have worked so hard to protect our citizens and property. Last week, when my office called the Incident Command Center for the Columbia Complex Fire in Waitsburg, Washington, a firefighter from Louisiana picked up the phone. Louisiana joined firefighting personnel from the State of Washington, Oregon, Arizona and New Mexico, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. This year the Department of Defense has been involved for the first time since 2003. ``Task Force Blaze,'' a 550-soldier battalion was mobilized from Fort Lewis to assist with firefighting activities on the Tripod Fire last month. Air National Guard Units in Wyoming, Colorado, Oregon, and California have been mobilized as part of the firefighting effort. This situation is all too familiar to this part of the Pacific Northwest. Citizens in Columbia County were forced to deal with the School Fire last year that raged for 13 days, burning 52,000 acres and destroying 215 homes and other structures. Unfortunately, we are facing another all too familiar situation, running out of money to fight these fires. While Congress is aware of this perennial problem, and has wisely boosted wildland fire fighting money the last few years, this season's unusually high fire activity in Washington State and across the Nation has strained us further still. In Washington State for example, more than 3,300 firefighting personnel are bravely fighting these stubborn blazes. That is why I am a cosponsor of Mr. Bingaman's critical amendment. Any day now, the Federal Government will have spent all of its available funding for wildland firefighting for this fiscal year. This will leave our primary firefighting agencies--the Forest Service and the Department of Interior--stuck with the choice of either cutting back firefighting efforts from the more than 1 million acres burning today, or cutting back from other necessary activities. Without these emergency funds, national forests throughout the country would likely have to cut back on vital maintenance or services to the public. And if we are forced to tap into the land and water conservation fund, we might have to forgo preserving pristine or unique lands. In these extraordinary circumstances with thousands of people affected by wildfires from Montana to Washington to Wyoming--I believe that providing Federal wildland firefighting agencies with the adequate resources should be a top priority. That's why I support the Bingaman amendment to provide an additional $275 million in emergency funding for wildfire suppression activities. Specifically, based on the resource projections provided to us by the administration, $175 million would be made available for the Forest Service and $100 million to the Department of Interior. These funds will help assure the thousands of our citizens in communities across the Nation that the Federal Government will have the adequate resources to continue fire suppression activities without borrowing from other important programs. When we run out of funding, we will have depleted available appropriations for fire suppression and a nearly $500 million reserve fund to deal with these emergencies. I recognize that we will probably need to do a lot more for firefighting and I look forward to supporting those efforts. However, based on available projections from the Federal Government providing $275 million now will help provide some immediate relief. While this is an extraordinary fire year, this is not a new issue for Congress to deal with. Over the last few years, Congress has added emergency appropriations and reserve accounts in response to wildfire suppression activities and other fire-related activities. As recently as 2004, we added $500 million in emergency funding to the fiscal year 2005 Defense appropriations bill for wildfire suppression activities. With a million acres burning across the Nation in 11 States--American citizens deserve to know that the Federal Government is doing everything it can to protect them, their property, and their communities. I think it is critical to provide these additional funds and I urge adoption of the Bingaman amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, earlier this summer, Seattle lost one of its most impressive and inspiring leaders. As an outstanding architect and an extraordinary man, Mel Streeter left his mark on our community and changed the lives of so many. When he died on Monday, June 12, we lost a great friend and a true pioneer. For more than 50 years, Mel's dedication, optimism, and good cheer made him a Seattle institution. For years to come, his creativity, generosity, and mentorship will provide a model and an inspiration. As one of the first African-American architects to lead a Seattle firm, Mel broke down barriers and created new opportunities for others who followed. As a proud and active member of Tabor 100, the America Institute of Architects Seattle Diversity Roundtable, and the Seattle Planning Commission, he strengthened our region and shaped its growth. And as a tireless advocate for low-income and senior housing, Mel showed his bold spirit and his big heart. His ingenuity and influence live on across the Pacific Northwest. We are all so lucky to have seen Mel's vision made real in beautiful structures across our State. We are luckier still to have had him in our lives. Next week, the people of Seattle will come together at a special memorial ceremony to celebrate Mel Streeter's life. My prayers and thoughts are with his wife Kathy and sons Doug, Jon, Ken, and Kurt. May your memories serve always as a source of comfort.

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 today to join the discussion about the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act, and I want to say at the outset that I support legislation to open up lease sale 181 as reported out of the Senate Energy Committee, and I support new environmentally responsible energy exploration in the gulf. Obviously, this legislation before us differs from what we passed out of the Energy Committee, and we are still looking at the various impacts of this particular legislation. Some of my colleagues have come to the floor to talk about the larger energy debate, and I wanted to make sure I came down and expressed my concerns and comments about what we need to do to move forward on not just having a piece of energy legislation come to the floor that only has one particular provision in response to our energy needs, but what we can do for a broader energy strategy. Many of my colleagues may have also turned on the television and seen that oil companies continue to report astronomical profit, and the public has a right to ask why. I hope that next week, when we take up the legislation dealing with the reauthorization of the Commodities Futures Trading Act, we might be able to discuss the issue of price gouging and what we can do to protect the public from those kinds of activities. I know many people in America are shocked to see, again, quarter profits from companies like Exxon jump 36 percent, and that is over last year's $10 billion record profit. So a lot of people in America want to know what we are going to do not only in the short term, but also in the long term on this energy issue. I know that while we are only discussing this particular proposed piece of legislation on one issue, this Senator thinks it is very important to bring up a broader global context to the challenges that the United States faces in this energy crisis and why it is imperative, with everything going on in the Middle East, that we continue to be very aggressive about a U.S. energy policy that will get us off of our focus on oil and get us on to being a leader in the world economy not just in the United States on energy technology but around the globe. Earlier this month, I spoke to the Washington Council on International Trade. That is in Seattle. It happened to coincide with the 33rd anniversary that Senator Magnuson had taken a trip to China to visit with the Foreign Minister. Maggie led that congressional delegation after President Nixon opened up the door to China, and he had a 2-hour meeting with the Foreign Minister there. It is interesting because there are notes from that meeting in which Senator Magnuson said he was going to talk about everything from the Pacific Northwest to energy issues, but he happened to scribble a little phrase on a piece of paper that is still recorded in history, which says that China can no longer be an island in the world. I certainly believe that China can no longer be an island in the world. Three decades ago, this policy was correct, but it is even more important today as it relates to our global energy needs and the United States and China working together. It is no surprise that China's influence has come to the forefront of the global economy debate and that everybody realizes that we are tied together in so many ways. President Hu was recently in Seattle, and we discussed a variety of issues between the Pacific Northwest and, obviously, we have a great economic relationship in selling airplanes, coffee, software, and a variety of agricultural products to China. We continued those discussions. What we see today is that the global energy issues are prevalent in our trading relationship with China, and they are also important to our national security issues and, obviously, to our environmental issues. That is why I believe it is time for us to take up and establish a formalized, high-level dialog between the United States and China on energy policy. There are various accidents of geology in this world, and I think I have said many times on the Senate floor that the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. So when it comes to that situation, basically, China and the United States have landed in the same boat; that is, neither one of us can drill our way to energy security within our borders. But both of our economies have grown increasingly susceptible to these global energy spikes, and we need to act aggressively together to address these issues from a global security perspective. As a result, I think it is in our mutual interest not to view ourselves as competitors for scarce energy resources but as global partners in the race to move beyond the petroleum dependency. Establishing a sustained cooperative relationship with China on energy policy will open up new markets for new American technologies and companies that we can help create and foster with our energy policy here. Recently, Thomas Friedman wrote that you can, with these new markets, ``turn Red China into green China,'' providing America with economic opportunity and a long-term environmental benefit. But here are some of the facts: Today, China accounts for 40 percent of the increase in oil demand. The number of passenger vehicles on the Chinese roads have more than tripled since 2001 and may equal the United States by 2030. So China faces a massive transportation infrastructure modernization. We know there are still 30 million Chinese who didn't, in 2004, have electricity. So trying to keep pace with the growing demand, China is essentially adding a huge 1,000- megawatt coal-fired plant to its grid each week. That is like adding the capacity every year to serve the entire country of Spain. These new coal plants have created problems such as widespread pollution. Sixteen of the world's 20 most air-polluted cities are in China. Even with the influx of plants and patchworks to the grid, there are various areas of the country that still have uncertain access to power. In 2004, China had a power shortage in 24 of its 31 provinces. They are struggling with the mammoth task of trying to keep pace with their energy needs. Since 2001, their consumption has grown at a rate 1\1/2\ times the growth of its overall economy. So we see that China, because it was poorly endowed with natural resources--except for coal--has increasingly become dependent on oil imports. Now China relies on the Middle East for half of its oil, which is similar to our circumstances. Beijing has been racing around the world trying to lock in production for oil and gas in Canada and Saudi Arabia, and they are looking at suppliers for a variety of energy needs. Unlike the United States, they are looking in places such as Sudan, Angola, Burma, and Iran. As one of our distinguished international national security experts, Henry Kissinger, has suggested, energy resources may cause international conflict in the coming years. So what do we need to do about that? I believe we need to get serious about this effort here and that the United States and China share concerns about high oil prices. We have a common interest in working together to mitigate global supply shocks and resulting price spikes. Both nations need to work harder to increase energy efficiencies and to achieve continued economic growth. There is no reason the United States and China should not work together on the same side in virtually all international energy negotiations. Currently, this is far from the case. Today, China views the United States as a competitor in these energy markets, and we look at them the same way. The congressionally chartered U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission warned of a ``petroleum collision course well before the world's aggregate petroleum supply is exhausted.'' I think they are saying that because they realize this collision course could be avoided if we work aggressively. This Senator believes we must take three concrete steps that will put us on a proactive path for engagement and cooperation. First, President Bush should work with President Hu to convene a U.S.-China energy summit. Second, we should put at the top of our agenda an effort to establish a U.S.-China working group with Cabinet-level leadership from the administration. Establishing such a group was one of the major recommendations of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission in a report to Congress in 2005. Specifically, this proposal reinvigorated a 1995 U.S.-China energy efficiency and renewable protocol which I think we should get back to. At the time, over 30 U.S. firms were involved in activities and programs which were designed to strengthen the bilateral cooperation and advance the role of the private sector by the United States in China's energy development. A permanent working group would also be necessary to oversee any kind of joint R&D effort and could serve as an arbiter and negotiator for technology transfer issues. And, third, I believe, in addition to the bilateral engagement, we should work to bring China into a membership of the International Energy Agency. I know the Presiding Officer has thought a great deal about energy issues, energy cooperation, and protocols. The International Energy Agency is an intergovernmental organization with 26 different member organizations which prepares and seeks information about how to mitigate global supply and shocks. In recent years, this organization has served as a clearinghouse for information on global energy prices and technologies. With China's membership in this organization, I believe we would see a lot more cooperation and information that could help us mitigate some of these spikes. Some people have looked at China's energy policy and called it ``mercantilistic'' as they go around and buy up these resources at the wellheads in various regions of the marketplace. Encouraging them instead to be involved in the IEA would move Beijing to be a more constructive player in the global energy marketplace. Clearly, these initiatives--a Presidential summit, establishing a direct U.S.-China working group, and promoting China's engagement in the International Energy Agency--are just a few steps down a very long road to a complicated energy security issue. But it is clear that the economies of the United States and China are now intertwined, and our energy security should be considered with a common purpose. This issue will color our relationship with China for decades to come, but if we are direct and proactive in our engagement, there is also opportunity, and an opportunity for the United States in meeting China's energy needs is key to their domestic stability and economic growth. Improved cooperation between our nations could have significant economic benefits for both countries. Let me talk about that innovation for a second. The reason I am raising this issue within the context of today's debate is because we are missing an opportunity today. Rather than simply focusing on drilling, we should be debating what is going to give America and American companies the lead in 21st century energy technology. Because there is an opportunity on the horizon in China and other growing economies, there is a huge opportunity to export American technologies and products, but we need to seize the technology lead to do so. Earlier, I spoke about the challenges China faces with its incredible growth in demand. Modernizing China's domestic energy infrastructure will require a $35 billion investment. That is every year for the foreseeable year--$35 billion in investment every year for the foreseeable future. So we must work to open up these Chinese markets to grid management software, smart metering technology, new transmission technology, biomass and biofuels, and related innovations. These things are emerging technologies in the United States, which we could further accelerate not just for our domestic benefit, but also as a supplier for that growing, demanding Chinese market. Given the evolving nature of China's energy industry from its complete state-controlled entities into more hybrid models, we can help crack open these markets, I believe, overnight, and gaining entry, once again, requires us to be very proactive and engaged, with a sustained commitment. I believe whoever develops these technologies that break through to these economies will hold the key to the 21st century. I want the United States to be the technology leader there, and I want us to continue to look for these huge market opportunities to do so. Essentially, China today has a 20-percent more fuel-efficient target than we do. The 2005 renewable energy law mandates that 15 percent of China's energy comes from renewables by 2020, and the plant also sets a 20-percent savings standard for new appliances and other technologies. Consistent bilateral involvement with U.S. counterparts through a U.S.-China energy working group could help foster the changes that we would like to see with U.S. technology companies and could help us grow those businesses and opportunities. Figuring out how to navigate these barriers, as I said, I believe requires greater cooperation and greater administration involvement in making sure there is a U.S.-China relationship. The International Energy Agency estimates that China will spend $2.3 trillion over the next 25 years to meet its growing energy demands, and that just modernizing its electricity grid would require $37 billion annually, a figure that I referred to a few moments ago. So these are great opportunities for U.S. markets. They are great opportunities to show that we can work together to be effective. For example, already some organizations on the west coast are working together with private foundations and public-private partnerships. For example, last year the State of California signed a pact with a sister province in China to provide technical assistance to work together on demand-side technologies. The agreement came in large part due to the work of the U.S.-China Efficiency Alliance, a nonprofit group that counts as its founding members and leaders various State officials, academics, environmentalists, and, obviously, some of the large utilities. The reason China is a huge market for these kinds of opportunities and that this is taking place, obviously, from the west coast perspective is because the west coast has already had an aggressive trade relationship with China and also has been aggressive about these clean energy technologies. So this is happening to a certain degree already on the west coast, but it is a great economic opportunity for our entire Nation if we continue to accelerate it. The question I have in mind today is, why are we ignoring this larger debate and opportunity? Why are we not debating a larger energy bill for the 21st century in which we continue to promote the energy innovation that can lead to a cleaner environment, better energy security, and certainly greater national security? Fourteen years before he went to China, Senator Magnuson told the Seattle PI newspaper that failing to trade with China was basically ``pretending 700 million people in the world don't exist.'' Thirty-three years later, it is about time that the United States really understand that phrase. It is time that we understand the internal transformation and opportunity to work together on energy policy to solve some of our common problems and realize some of our great economic opportunities. I hope next week we will continue to discuss various energy policies. I hope we will continue to open up this legislation to further amendments so that we can get to other issues that will really help the United States succeed in addressing our energy challenges. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. I thank the Senator from Utah for his leadership on this legislation over the last several years, and I thank his staff for their hard work and perseverance in pushing this legislation to the Senate floor tonight. Last June, the entire Nation was horrified by the kidnapping and murders of the Groene family and the tragic crimes upon little Shasta Groene. Joseph Duncan was a convicted sex offender who beat Brenda Groene; her 13-year-old son, Slade; and her boyfriend, Mark McKenzie to death. Their bodies were found in their home in Idaho on May 16, 2005. The killings captured the national headlines and prompted a massive search for the two Groene children, 8-year-old Shasta and her 9-year-old brother, Dylan. Six weeks later, on July 2, restaurant workers in Idaho recognized Shasta and called the police. Dylan's remains were found later in western Montana. This did not have to happen. In 1980, Duncan was convicted of rape in Washington State. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison and began his sentence in a treatment program. After he was terminated from the program, he served his sentence in prison until he was released on parole in 1994. In 2000, he moved to Fargo, where he registered with the North Dakota Sex Offender Registry, but before long he had moved again and both the North Dakota and Washington State registries lost track of him. In April of 2005, a Minnesota judge released Duncan on bail after he had been charged with child molestation. Duncan promptly skipped town. Minnesota issued a warrant for his arrest that May because he had not registered as a sex offender in that State, but by that time it was too late. On May 16, the Groene family was found dead and it wasn't until July 2 that Shasta was recovered. Joseph Duncan was essentially lost by three States. He moved from State to State to avoid capture. No one knew where he was nor even how to look for him. I say again, this did not have to happen. There is no worse crime than a crime against a child, and one crime against a child is too many. That is why I have cosponsored the Child Protection Safety Act, because we need better information. We need a better system to keep that information accurate, and we need better standards to keep that system from breaking down when we need it most. The Senate must pass this bipartisan legislation to improve the national sex offender database, to link State tracking systems, and to prevent sex offenders from escaping and moving to other States. Today there is far too much disparity among State registration requirements and notification obligations for sex offenders. Yes, there is already a National Registry, but it is based on often outdated listings from all 50 States. Worse, there are currently no incentives for offenders to provide accurate information, which helps to undermine the system. Child sex offenders have exploited this stunning lack of uniformity, and the consequences have been tragic. Twenty percent of the Nation's 560,000 sex offenders are ``lost'' because State offender registry programs are not coordinated well enough. We take these numbers very seriously in Washington State. In Washington State we have over 19,000 registered sex offenders and kidnaping offenders; more than 2,900 Washingtonians are currently incarcerated for these sex crimes. But we must be tough on these criminals because the national statistics are staggering. One in five girls is estimated to be a victim of sexual assault. One in ten boys is estimated to be a victim. Only 35 percent of these cases are ever reported to the police. That is why this spring, Washington State passed a tough law that is new in mandating that sex offenders from other States must register with authorities within 3 days upon moving to Washington State. The previous law had been 30 days. We also established a minimum sentence for certain sex crimes and tougher registration rules. Back in 1990 we were the first State to enact a sexual predator involuntary commitment law that ensures predators who are about to be released after serving their time can be prevented from being released if mental health officials believe that they will endanger the community. This law has become a national model for other States to follow. Today, these sexual predators are housed on McNeil Island where they cannot hurt our children. Here is what I know. Local law enforcement needs the tools and information that this legislation will give them to defend our children. It will help us close the gap between Federal and State sex offender registration and notification programs. Every State needs to update one another and the national registry in real time, and we need to recognize that tough punishment today will prevent terrible costs tomorrow. We must keep our communities safe, and I know that is why the Senate is going to act on this legislation tonight. The Adam Walsh Protection and Safety Act creates this registry on a national level that is so long overdue. It provides strong, practical tools for law enforcement The new registry will expand the scope and duration of sex offender registration and notification requirements. It will keep track of all sex offender information--addresses, employment, vehicle, and other related information. And, as my colleague from North Dakota talked about, with his hard work, it also has a national sex offender Web site registry, the new Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Web site, so that every American can stay informed. Now the public will be able to search for sex offender information by geographic radius and zip code, and the bill also, as my colleague from Texas just mentioned, increases the penalties for violent sex crimes against America's children. It requires that the sex offenders register prior to their release from prison or supervised programs. America needs this legislation. I am so proud of my colleagues in joining in a bipartisan effort to give law enforcement the tools they need to protect our families and our communities. Let's give them the information and the resources they need to get tough with sex offenders. Let's pass the Adam Walsh Child Protection Safety Act to not only honor John Walsh and his family, but also for all those who have been victims of this hideous crime, and to show that we are willing to work together to be aggressive in taking action and helping to make America safe for our children. I will yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I join my colleagues on the floor to speak about H.R. 810. I applaud the Senator from Illinois for his comments because I know he has many fine research institutions in his State and has met with many people who suffer from a variety of diseases who could be helped if H.R. 810 is passed and signed by the President. So I commend him for his remarks. I certainly thank the Senator from Iowa for being out here all afternoon talking about the importance of this legislation and trying to communicate how important it is that H.R. 810, the legislation that focuses on embryonic stem cell research, be passed and signed by the President. I also want to say I know the Senator from Kansas has been out here, and I have enjoyed working with him on a variety of pieces of legislation, particularly legislation that dealt with international marriage brokers, trying to protect women who come to America, making sure they got full information about people who were helping them apply for visas before they come to the country. So I certainly have enjoyed working with the Senator from Kansas on other legislation. But I wish to say I think it is important we focus our debate on H.R. 810--an important bill on embryonic stem cell research--in the context of science, because I believe Congress must not stand in the way of science. I think tomorrow's vote is exactly what that is about. So I want to be clear that I support that legislation and will work to overturn any attempts to veto this legislation. Like my colleagues, I have met these Americans who for too long have wanted to have hope. They have waited to have real hope that there would be a lifesaving stem cell research program. Many Americans believe we can do better. We know there are 3 million Americans who need help, and we understand that by investing today we can save lives tomorrow. We understand, for Americans who suffer from Alzheimer's or ALS or Parkinson's disease, it really does mean hope and a new way of looking at opportunity for them. We will have a debate about this continuing today and tomorrow. But we need to keep in mind it is good science that is at question. For us in Washington State, with 35,000 Washingtonians living with Parkinson's disease today, understanding what embryonic stem cell research can do for them is of utmost importance. We also have 300,000 Washingtonians who have been diagnosed with diabetes who, obviously, are very interested in this legislation. We have 160,000 Washington State residents who struggle with heart failure and understand there is so much that could be done in this particular area of research. We have 5,000 Washingtonians who suffer from spinal cord injuries. So there are people all over our State with various medical challenges who are looking to us to make the right decision and to allow critical research to give them promise for opportunity in the future. At the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center--I know my colleague from Iowa has visited the Fred Hutchinson Research Center--they are applying groundbreaking science and using adult stem cells to treat blood cancers such as leukemia, lymphoma, and various other diseases. They are also looking to do the same for kidney cancers. The Benaroya Research Institute at Virginia Mason in Seattle is working with stem cells on a collaborative 5-year project to grow a living heart. The effort could lead to tissue-engineered replacement hearts, and it means that could help us with various challenges in that particular area of health care. The University of Washington, which is in Seattle, boasts 70 scientists involved in aspects of stem cell biology addressing everything from liver disease to coronary heart disease. Three years ago, the NIH named the University of Washington one of the three exemplary centers for human embryonic stem cell research. But in the last 5 years, since President Bush banned the funding for embryonic stem cell research, it is as though our Nation has turned its back on that science and that work that could be done, and I am sure not just in Washington State. But that is a representative example of what could be done if we moved forward. It is important we continue to move forward by passing H.R. 810. The truth is that right now adult stem cells do not have anywhere near the scientific potential as embryonic stem cells. Their application is limited. Their reach is finite. And we do have a better option. Allowing federally funded research on embryos that would otherwise be destroyed would provide a much-needed expansion. Everything from eradicating, in our past, polio to mapping the human genome, our Nation has been a leader and an innovator in science and medicine. So let's not fall behind now. Just as we are challenged with so many of these diseases, we need to do more. Of the original 78 stem cell lines the administration permitted scientists to work on, only 21 are available today. Lab scientists must turn to private investors and already struggling State governments to carry on this critical research. So researchers in my State, in the State of Washington, say that Federal funding would increase research opportunities and allow scientists to use that money much more effectively. In March of 2006, the University of Washington announced that because of Federal funding restrictions, it would seek to establish a stem cell institute with private money and, instead, looks to raise $100 million in private funds to help it move forward. The University of Washington plans to reflect the intense competition it faces from other universities around the country that are boosting their research into stem cells which have permitted them to treat a variety of diseases. So the competition will continue. But we could be working together in a much more collaborative fashion, in a way that would help us extend the scope of that research. It is very important because so many of those involved in this particular area believe passionately we need this new area of expansion. One of those individuals, Dr. Storb of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, recently said this: We have exhausted research on adult stem cells. They do not do the trick. We have worked with them for 30 years now and know that they do not make all of the tissues in the body. He further went on to say: If the public wants cell-based therapies, then we must conduct that kind of stem cell research. We may learn more from embryonic cells how to program adult cells, but we have to work with embryonic cells to do just that. So this Congress, I believe, must not stand in the way of science. We have three bills we will vote on tomorrow, but only H.R. 810 actually clears the way for critical research that could lead to cures for so many debilitating diseases. There is no viable alternative to improving the research and serious investments that I believe H.R. 810 will provide. When we are talking to Americans who suffer from diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and others, I think it is important, as my colleague from Illinois stated, that we must keep in mind the stories of individuals. Mr. President, one such individual is a 4-year-old who died of brain cancer. Her mother wrote to us saying how important this bill was in holding opportunities for other people in other families who suffer from brain cancer. To me, it is so important that we pass this legislation and help those individuals and families who are suffering by giving them hope for promising research that we know science can provide. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk briefly about the current events in Israel and the Middle East. I strongly condemn the ongoing murderous attacks by Hezbollah on Israel and its soldiers. Several days ago, eight Israeli soldiers were killed and two were kidnapped following an unprovoked attack on northern Israel. Hezbollah must immediately and unconditionally release all Israeli soldiers. Hezbollah has refused United Nations demands to disarm and has been responsible for terrible acts of violence for many years. No country should provide support for Hezbollah, which is a U.S.-designated terrorist group. Hezbollah's actions are contrary to the interests of the Lebanese people and hurt the region. The Hezbollah attack follows a June 25 attack by Hamas on a southern Israeli military post that resulted in the kidnapping of an Israeli solider and the killing of several others. Hamas must also immediately and unconditionally release the soldier it is holding and end attacks on Israel. The United States will stand by our longtime ally and friend. The Israeli people have the right to live in peace and security. Israel has the right to protect its citizens. I strongly condemn the ongoing murderous attacks by Hezbollah and Hamas on Israel and its soldiers and believe that restraint is needed in the region to stop the escalation of violence and protect innocent lives. I yield the floor

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from a northern border State, and want to emphasize that homeland security along our northern border is of the utmost importance. I think the amendment offered by the Senator from Montana is a very important amendment for us to add to this legislation because of both its efficiency and effectiveness in helping us secure our northern border. For us, with great transportation crossings as we have in Washington State, including ferry transportation crossings, there was the instance in the Northwest where a terrorist was caught coming across from Canada into Port Angeles who was detained. But we are here today to talk about the vastness of the northern border that sometimes is penetrated by people who are not checking in at various checkpoints but try to sneak into the country along the vast, rugged areas of our Northwest terrain. So it is very important we get tough on border security by passing this amendment, which has cutting-edge technology that will actually help save this country dollars and provide greater border security. The unmanned aerial vehicles, as Senator Baucus has talked about, are already being deployed on dangerous patrols in the Middle East and in some places along our borders here at home. But the UAVs, I believe, are already in limited use on the southern border, and they have proven their effectiveness. To me, it is something we ought to expand on for our overall capability to help respond to incidents. With their extended range, these UAVs can conduct prolonged surveillance, sweep over remote border areas, relaying information to border agents on the ground. As has been described by some of the people I have met with on this issue, they literally create a communications network from the air to the ground that can get vital information to those who are involved in border security who can more effectively, then, do their job. This process provides critical intelligence about the areas that have previously gone unsecured for so long, and it allows our agents to better prepare and respond to incidents involving both illegal immigrants and drug smugglers. Now, I know there has been the Insitu Group from our State that has provided this technology in our Operation Iraqi Freedom and the global war on terror. They have flown many hours and been very effective with that technology. So I believe it is important for us to now get aggressive about using this same technology--that has been proven so successful--on our northern border and to have the continuation of its use on our southern border so we can modernize the patrol capabilities and reach hundreds of miles that have previously been unguarded. As I said, we do this at a much more effective rate than could possibly be done with any other tools and technology or manned efforts. So we will be giving our agents the best technology possible for them to guard our southern and northern borders, using improved intelligence. That is why I am so happy to work with Senator Baucus to direct the Department of Homeland Security to do a pilot on this UAV surveillance along the northern border. I will continue to work with him and many of my other colleagues to encourage Homeland Security to run this pilot program in affected areas throughout the Northwest and making sure that the investment here is realized so we can continue the expansion of this operation. As I said, the technology will help law enforcement at every level do their job, and it will help us in fighting this influx of drug problems we are also facing in the Northwest as well. And it will certainly give our citizens at home more security. We cannot turn our backs on the needs of the northern border while we are looking at some of the issues on the southern border. So let's make sure we are effective in covering both areas of our country and giving law enforcement the broadest tools possible to do their job. Mr. President, I yield the floor

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last night consumers in Washington State received welcome news; that is, that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided, after 5 long years, that the ratepayers of Snohomish County, WA, do not have to pay Enron $120 million for power that it never delivered during the western energy crisis, for which it sought to charge exorbitant power rates. The western energy crisis was certainly a tragic chapter, demonstrating corporate greed and the need to make sure we have regulatory fairness. This fight goes back to the spring of 2001. Since then, I have been working, along with my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the country, to make sure that ratepayers were treated fairly. There were many stops and starts in the process. There were times when our faith in the process began to erode. But one of the high points came last summer when the Senate Energy Committee came together in an unprecedented effort to debate and pass an amendment that basically protected ratepayers throughout the country, to make sure they had a fair shot at justice. This was an important amendment I offered, which made sure that everyone understood that the federal energy regulatory authority was the proper place to decide whether utilities such as Snohomish County PUD should have to pay Enron for power at exorbitant rates, resulting from Enron's market manipulation. I know the Chair knows this issue well and knows there were many other parts of the country that also were impacted by the same issues. That is why I want to make sure that we give thanks to all the people who played a constructive role in the debate: Certainly, I thank Senator Ensign, whose ratepayers in Nevada were facing a similar situation; of course, Senator Reid; Chairman Domenici, who ran the Energy Committee in a fair and open way that allowed us to have a serious debate. The chairman deserves credit, along with the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, for his focus on consumer protection; Senator Smith, Senator Craig and Senator Allen, Senators Wyden and Murray, and all my Democratic colleagues on the Committee. We also had some incredible help and support from the Energy Committee counsel and staff: Chief counsel Sam Fowler and Judy Pensabene, along with other in-depth analysis from Leon Lowery and Lisa Epiphane. These staff people helped us wade through a very challenging legal issue but, in the end, made sure that federal authority stayed where it was, and that that Federal entity gave the ratepayers a chance at the important relief they needed. The other side of the story is that of the Snohomish County PUD, this is a David and Goliath story, of a small utility that did the job of taking on a big power company. This utility said that it was not going to be forced to pay manipulated power rates. They fought for the ratepayers of their State and for justice to make sure that this never happens again to consumers in America. It shows that sometimes the little guy can win. It shows that the Snohomish County PUD fought back against this fraudulent $122 million bill, and was vindicated in the process. It was an important battle for them to fight, for the average Snohomish County resident who would have been forced to pay over $400 additional to Enron in utility rates; and for the county's school districts that would have seen a $2.5 million increase in electricity costs. That is money that can otherwise go to hiring teachers or paying for books. And for the businesses and other ratepayers in this county who were impacted economically by the exorbitant rates we have been paying from the western energy crisis and Enron's manipulation, last night's announcement will bring a big sigh of relief. Now we need to make sure that we get on with the task of making sure that this never happens again. When it comes to energy markets that drive our economy, aggressive consumer protection must be part of Federal regulators' overall objective, when overseeing the wholesale electricity markets. It is far better that we continue to make sure the Federal regulators do their job. If that is what Congress needs to do by passing amendments such as the Cantwell amendment, we will continue to do so. We also took some important steps in the Energy bill last year by saying that there is a Federal ban on market manipulation; that is, when it comes to electricity markets and natural gas markets. This Senator believes there is still more to be done in other energy markets. Just this morning we woke up to news that BP North America has been indicted for manipulation of propane markets. This is a case that is just starting to be made, but we will hear the evidence. Our work is not done until we make sure that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and other Federal agencies have all the tools they need to make sure there is transparency in energy markets; to make sure that propane, jet fuel, oil, diesel, gasoline markets, all are protected with the transparency and oversight necessary to make sure consumers aren't impacted by market manipulation. In the end, it is the American consumer and the American economy that suffer when we don't have functioning energy markets. I look forward to working with my colleagues to continue to make sure that we protect consumers from exorbitant energy rates, that we do our job at the Federal level to enforce the law and uphold those standards that make these markets work and continue to help our economy grow. Again, I thank all those who were helpful in the long process to bring justice for ratepayers in the State of Washington and all those who sought to give a good helping hand in the effort to make sure that our Federal laws were held up, implemented, and that we didn't allow this issue to continue to be punted around a variety of bankruptcy courts. But instead, we made sure that justice was delivered to the ratepayers. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Murray from Washington, for her eloquent statement about the state of veterans affairs in our country and to make sure that those who patriotically served our country are taken care of in their time of need. Many of my colleagues are here--and I appreciate being with my women Senate Democratic colleagues--to talk about our checklist for change and talk about the important issues we believe Congress and the Senate should be focusing on. But I know that people all across my State are wondering what we are doing here in the few days left before our Fourth of July recess. In fact, one of the newspapers in my State basically said: If Members don't have better things to do than some of the proposals they have been bringing up to amend the Constitution, then we should just go home. Or, as one newspaper said: The checklists that we have been dealing with are full of political gimmicks and not national needs. I would like to say that these are the national needs that we ought to be dealing with, and making college education affordable for all is a huge priority. As we have spoken out on this issue as a group of women Senators talking about the checklist for change, I am now hearing from students all over America who are feeling the same pinch. A student from Central Washington University said: Like many others, I am feeling the cuts that affect financial aid. Even students from outside the State of Washington are e-mailing me. One student from the University of Florida basically said they were coming here to Capitol Hill soon with their full group of presidents and vice presidents and student vice presidents. They reminded me that: We are the future of America, and we must ensure that future by making sure students, regardless of wealth or other socioeconomic factors, have access to a good college education. Mr. President, I couldn't agree with that student from the University of Florida more, and I look forward to seeing them in their efforts here on Capitol Hill to be successful. But we are here this morning because we all know the best way to secure a good job is a quality education, and we know that the doors to educational opportunity are slamming shut for many Americans. This is something that is very personal to me as somebody who went to school on financial aid, and I can literally say I don't think I would be in the Senate or have been a successful executive at a business enterprise if I didn't have access to that good college education. We can't let college education become a privilege for just a few of the wealthy, and we have to make sure that families and students can afford college, regardless of their financial resources. Let me just lay out a few facts. Since 2001, the cost of a public higher education has increased by a staggering 46 percent. In Washington State alone, tuition costs at 4-year public schools have spiked, an increase of 63 percent since the fall of 2000. Tuition costs are skyrocketing, but family income, particularly of those with college-age students, has only risen about 3.4 percent between 2000 and 2003. So the challenge is we haven't seen income opportunities go up, but yet the cost of education has gone up. So while those costs have soared, almost 350,000 Washington students have basically had their Federal financial aid slashed. And families have to tell their children they can't afford to send them to college this year or next. Well, I can tell you, Mr. President, that is unacceptable. We need to do better to make sure that we make college education affordable. What have we been doing? Last January, we had the largest raid on student financial aid I have ever seen. The legislation that was passed by this body cut $12.7 billion straight from student loan programs, the biggest single cut in the history of the Federal student loan program. That was coming on top of the President's budget, which basically also proposed a $2.2 billion cut in the Education Department budget, which is the largest cut in the Education Department in 26 years of history. So we are here this morning, and this Senator is here, because we believe we need a new direction. Today we are standing here to challenge Congress to act now in the best interests of American students, America's families, and certainly for the competitiveness of America's future economy. We challenge this Congress to make college education more affordable now, to help families save for college education. Specifically, we are asking the leadership to make a priority legislation that would increase the Coverdell education savings account contribution to $5,000 and let families make that tax deduction contribution to help them pay for that increase in college education; secondly, to make the college tuition tax deduction permanent, making it possible for families to put money into education and not feel the pinch; third, to pass my ``GI Bill for Life'' legislation that gives those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan who served in our military the opportunity to complete their college education and get the financial support, as they have supported our country, no matter how long it takes for them to complete that course in education. It is time that we invest in the future of America and provide Americans the next opportunity of leadership in our economy by giving them access to a good education. We can act now and we can pass these legislative issues before Congress adjourns this year. We hope this checklist for change will be a priority--not some of the issues we have been focusing on, but a real checklist to get busy with the priorities and needs of American families. Now I would like to yield the floor for my colleague, Senator Lincoln, who is going to talk about the affordability of health care in America.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes, followed by Senator Talent and following that, as much time as Senator Byrd might consume.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and Senator Levin of Michigan for their leadership in getting this legislation passed and for accepting language from legislation that I have sponsored, the National Guard Equipment Accountability Act, and making it part of the Defense authorization bill we just passed. They have done an outstanding job managing this legislation on the floor. I also thank the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, and the cochair of the Senate National Guard Caucus, Mr. Leahy, who also cosponsored this important legislation. As a nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare and properly equip all the men and women in uniform. The National Guard and Reserve are an essential part of our national defense, and confronting our enemies in distant lands is one of their obligations. Responding to threats here at home is another. In Washington State, the threats of volcanos, tsunamis, and other natural disasters are never far from our minds. We are aware of our porous northern border and the threat that poses to our safety and security. We know that the National Guard is not only the first line of response but also the first line of defense. Whether it is Mount St. Helens or floods or a variety of issues, we know the National Guard in Washington State has been there when we need them most. They do more than just preserve our security at home. Thousands of National Guard members are currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan-- in fact, there are about 500 members of the Washington National Guard deployed overseas. All of those serving in the National Guard make great sacrifices. They accept enormous responsibilities to help us. We owe it to them to make sure their missions are successful and that National Guard members have the resources they need to execute their missions. Right now, I want to make sure we are upholding our part of the bargain. When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit. They go to their mission with the tools that they have trained with-- familiar humvees, radios, trucks, whatever it takes to make them successful. While they serve abroad, their equipment actually becomes part of the greater mission. As a result, when these men and women return home to places like Camp Murray, their equipment often does not return with them. It is left behind, helping other Guard units complete their portion of the mission and to fill in where there are gaps in supplies. The problem is that we have no plan to help the National Guard and Reserve units deal with the loss of that equipment. These returning units are left underequipped and lacking the equipment necessary for continued training for their next deployments. That is why I offered this language to make sure that we are taking care of this shortfall. According to the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 billion overseas in ongoing operations. So that is why this language was so important to add to the Defense bill. Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the time the Army, in leaving this equipment and resources behind, did not have a replacement plan. So specifically my amendment codifies language telling the Department of Defense to provide our men and women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve. The language requires a tracking system of all this equipment and for a replacement plan to make sure that these men and women get the equipment they need in the theaters of operation, when they return home--enabling them to plan ahead for their next mission. Finally, my amendment would also require a memorandum of understanding, specifying exactly how equipment will be tracked and when it will be returned. This will help our National Guard and Reserve units plan ahead for future obligations and missions. Given the current equipment situation and aggressive use of our National Guard, I believe it is critical that we have them fully equipped for both their missions at home and abroad. Again, I thank the Senators for helping to get this language into the Defense authorization bill. Our soldiers, our Active Duty, our Reserve units, and the men and women of the Guard have chosen to stand and serve our country with pride and to sacrifice and accept enormous responsibility. We, too, have the responsibility of giving them the resources they need to fulfill their mission. I know this legislation will help them do so. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on a growing phenomenon across the West--towns and cities are struggling to ensure cleanup from decades of environmental contamination on properties formally owned by Asarco, LLC. For over a century, Asarco mined, smelted, and refined metals at sites across the country, leaving behind a legacy of lead, arsenic, and cadmium contamination in more than 90 sites in 22 Western States. But when Asarco filed for bankruptcy in August 2005 suddenly it became unclear if these contaminated sites would ever get cleaned up. Asarco's outrageous legacy of environmental pollution stretches from Helena, MT, to El Paso, TX, and is estimated to total $1 billion nationwide. That is money that taxpayers, not the polluting company, may now have to pay. In my State, Asarco operated a 14-acre site in Everett from the 1800s until 1912, and two sites in Ruston, a 67-acre property and the larger 97-acre Superfund site on Commencement Bay. When Asarco declared bankruptcy last August, the citizens of Washington State were left with a $100 million Superfund mess. In Tacoma and Ruston, Asarco contractors abandoned cleanup projects midway through, leaving piles of contaminated soil sitting in resident's backyards. Although cleanup resumed thanks to emergency removal funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, these funds only go so far and eventually taxpayers may have to bear the brunt of the costs. I wish I could say that Asarco is just an exceptionally bad actor, but there is evidence that the company's irresponsible practices are more common than we knew. That is why in October 2002, I asked the Government Accountability Office to examine how corporate polluters might be avoiding their responsibility under existing environmental law. I was pleased to be joined in requesting this study by then Environment and Public Works Chairman Jeffords, Judiciary Chairman Leahy, and Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee Chairwoman Boxer. The report found that the Environmental Protection Agency has faced significant challenges in holding polluting corporations responsible for their environmental cleanup obligations, partly due to bankruptcy laws that allow companies to avoid future cleanup costs on sites that were damaged in the past. In many ways this report confirms what I feared back in 2002, and what became starkly evident last August, that corporate polluters are using bankruptcy and other regulatory loopholes to get out of their environmental cleanup obligations. The report has a whole section on how ``businesses can organize and restructure themselves in ways that allow them to limit their expenditures for environmental cleanups.'' Whether it is using the shield of bankruptcy to evade their obligations, or engaging in corporate shell games with foreign subsidiaries, the ``polluter pays'' principle should hold firm. To quote again from the report, ``As a result of EPA's inaction, the federal treasury continues to be exposed to potentially enormous cleanup costs associated with businesses not currently required to provide financial assurances.'' Fortunately, the GAO provided not only a thorough analysis of the problem but also a set of detailed recommendations on how to tackle these abuses. Based on their recommendations, I authored the Cleanup Assurance and Polluter Accountability Act of 2006, which I am introducing today along with Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Senator Boxer, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management. My bill: Enables the bankruptcy court to examine 10 years of past transactions--instead of 2 years--between a parent company and its subsidiary for evidence that companies transferred assets to avoid environmental cleanup responsibilities; requires the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to evaluate conflicting goals between the bankruptcy code and environmental laws and to provide recommendations for action to Congress; reasserts and expands upon the 1980 requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency develop financial assurance regulations and ensure that businesses maintain appropriate financial assurances, providing evidence that they're able to pay for cleaning up of environmental damage should it occur; and requires companies subject to financial assurance requirements to report declarations of bankruptcy directly to the EPA with an estimation of environmental damage and an explanation of current and former owners or partners of the facility. These measures will go a long way toward closing these costly loopholes in our bankruptcy code and protecting tax payers from unjust corporate maneuvering to evade cleanup responsibility at polluted sites. Communities across the country continue to bear the burden of Asarco's irresponsible behavior. The GAO report confirms that this abuse is not specific to Asarco but is increasingly widespread. It will take many more years to clean up the mess that a few bad actors have left behind. We can't afford to stand by and allow another Asarco to happen. We must not ask the taxpayers to continue footing the bill for others' reckless actions. I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues to enact these protections into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Wall Street Journal recently reported on a growing phenomenon across the West--towns and cities are struggling to ensure cleanup from decades of environmental contamination on properties formally owned by Asarco, LLC. For over a century, Asarco mined, smelted, and refined metals at sites across the country, leaving behind a legacy of lead, arsenic, and cadmium contamination in more than 90 sites in 22 Western States. But when Asarco filed for bankruptcy in August 2005 suddenly it became unclear if these contaminated sites would ever get cleaned up. Asarco's outrageous legacy of environmental pollution stretches from Helena, MT, to El Paso, TX, and is estimated to total $1 billion nationwide. That is money that taxpayers, not the polluting company, may now have to pay. In my State, Asarco operated a 14-acre site in Everett from the 1800s until 1912, and two sites in Ruston, a 67-acre property and the larger 97-acre Superfund site on Commencement Bay. When Asarco declared bankruptcy last August, the citizens of Washington State were left with a $100 million Superfund mess. In Tacoma and Ruston, Asarco contractors abandoned cleanup projects midway through, leaving piles of contaminated soil sitting in resident's backyards. Although cleanup resumed thanks to emergency removal funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, these funds only go so far and eventually taxpayers may have to bear the brunt of the costs. I wish I could say that Asarco is just an exceptionally bad actor, but there is evidence that the company's irresponsible practices are more common than we knew. That is why in October 2002, I asked the Government Accountability Office to examine how corporate polluters might be avoiding their responsibility under existing environmental law. I was pleased to be joined in requesting this study by then Environment and Public Works Chairman Jeffords, Judiciary Chairman Leahy, and Superfund and Waste Management Subcommittee Chairwoman Boxer. The report found that the Environmental Protection Agency has faced significant challenges in holding polluting corporations responsible for their environmental cleanup obligations, partly due to bankruptcy laws that allow companies to avoid future cleanup costs on sites that were damaged in the past. In many ways this report confirms what I feared back in 2002, and what became starkly evident last August, that corporate polluters are using bankruptcy and other regulatory loopholes to get out of their environmental cleanup obligations. The report has a whole section on how ``businesses can organize and restructure themselves in ways that allow them to limit their expenditures for environmental cleanups.'' Whether it is using the shield of bankruptcy to evade their obligations, or engaging in corporate shell games with foreign subsidiaries, the ``polluter pays'' principle should hold firm. To quote again from the report, ``As a result of EPA's inaction, the federal treasury continues to be exposed to potentially enormous cleanup costs associated with businesses not currently required to provide financial assurances.'' Fortunately, the GAO provided not only a thorough analysis of the problem but also a set of detailed recommendations on how to tackle these abuses. Based on their recommendations, I authored the Cleanup Assurance and Polluter Accountability Act of 2006, which I am introducing today along with Senator Jeffords, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and Senator Boxer, the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Superfund and Waste Management. My bill: Enables the bankruptcy court to examine 10 years of past transactions--instead of 2 years--between a parent company and its subsidiary for evidence that companies transferred assets to avoid environmental cleanup responsibilities; requires the National Bankruptcy Review Commission to evaluate conflicting goals between the bankruptcy code and environmental laws and to provide recommendations for action to Congress; reasserts and expands upon the 1980 requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency develop financial assurance regulations and ensure that businesses maintain appropriate financial assurances, providing evidence that they're able to pay for cleaning up of environmental damage should it occur; and requires companies subject to financial assurance requirements to report declarations of bankruptcy directly to the EPA with an estimation of environmental damage and an explanation of current and former owners or partners of the facility. These measures will go a long way toward closing these costly loopholes in our bankruptcy code and protecting tax payers from unjust corporate maneuvering to evade cleanup responsibility at polluted sites. Communities across the country continue to bear the burden of Asarco's irresponsible behavior. The GAO report confirms that this abuse is not specific to Asarco but is increasingly widespread. It will take many more years to clean up the mess that a few bad actors have left behind. We can't afford to stand by and allow another Asarco to happen. We must not ask the taxpayers to continue footing the bill for others' reckless actions. I look forward to working with my congressional colleagues to enact these protections into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we are here today discussing the emergency supplemental conference report, which appropriates over $70 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Tomorrow we will return to the Defense authorization bill that will include more discussion of our efforts in those countries. The last week had events that this Senator considers very positive: the finalization of a new government in Iraq with the naming of Ministers of Defense and Interior, the U.S. military's success of killing Al-Zarqawi, and the safe return of the President just today from Iraq. While we have had these successes, I think it is important for Congress, as we discuss both the supplemental bill and the DOD authorization legislation, to keep in mind the challenge ahead of us. While Prime Minister Maliki has moved forward with his new government, we know that national security experts warn that Iraq is still in bad shape. I believe that Congress must do its job in holding the administration accountable as we consider these two pieces of legislation and make sure that 2006 is a year of significant transition in Iraq. That is, specifically, that while we have understood the challenges and mistakes that have been made, that we need to make sure we are moving forward, and we need to make sure we are turning the security efforts over to the new Iraqi Government. While we have seen some promising developments in Iraq in the last week, we need to remind ourselves that sectarian violence in the last several months has been on the increase, and that the challenge for Iraqi and U.S. forces remains high. The challenge before us as a Congress is to remain vigilant on the accountability of the administration as we consider this legislation I believe is paramount. U.S. ground forces have been stretched and placed under enormous stress. Sectarian militias are responsible for waves of increasing violence, and there are now over 1.2 million internally displaced persons throughout Iraq. And as I said, while we have had some successes, not everything has gone as planned. There has been mismanagement, contract abuses, fraud in various levels of our reconstruction, and some lack of accountability on exactly how U.S. taxpayer dollars have been spent. Electricity and oil production are below prewar levels. This all has to change. This year the United States has been spending about $8 billion per month in Iraq, and Congress has appropriated to date about $320 billion for Iraqi operations. We need to know where the President is going from here. Everyone should be thankful that Saddam Hussein is gone, but we should learn from the mistakes that have been made so far and rebolster our efforts to get more international support for what the Iraqi Government and the United States are trying to accomplish. No matter where the world community was prior to the U.S. involvement in Iraq, everyone should rise to help the new Iraqi Government meet our growing challenges. So this Senator wants to make sure that we are reaching out and being effective at a broader international effort. I call on President Bush to name a special envoy to Iraq to promote regional diplomacy and to make sure the United Nations and the World Bank are fully engaged. The President could name someone with the stature and leverage of former President Bill Clinton or former President George H.W. Bush, who was so instrumental in building an international coalition before the first gulf war. I believe that again today diplomatic collaboration is vital. A special envoy could help garner the international support for both Iraqi reconstruction and security. As I said, regardless of what foreign governments thought about the administration's decision to go to war, everyone should share the same desire to help Iraq succeed as a sovereign nation. The international donor community has pledged approximately $13.5 billion for Iraq and for reconstruction efforts but has only delivered about $3.5 billion of that total. That must change. If nothing else, a U.S. envoy could make its primary mission the financial contribution by these countries to help shoulder the burden of stabilizing this very important region of the world. Second, I believe the United States should not hesitate in calling a Dayton-like summit with our allies, with Iraqi neighbors, with the United Nations, to make sure we are moving forward on answering any political and security questions that will help in stabilizing the region. We should also support the Arab League's plan to hold its own international conference on reconciliation in Iraq. The international community should work together to help the Iraqis reach a comprehensive agreement to guarantee regional security, protect Iraq's borders, supplant the militias with Iraqi Security Forces, and revive the reconstruction efforts, especially in Baghdad. We cannot allow the political process to drift. The international community must demand that Iraqis continue making compromises necessary to end the sectarian violence and to make sure that any amendments to the Iraqi constitution, if necessary, take place in short order. Third, I believe that the United Nations should become more involved. The United Nations should encourage the creation of a U.N. High Commissioner for Iraq similar to the U.N. High Representative for Bosnia, which was created to work with the international community to ensure a peaceful, viable state in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Creating a U.N. High Commissioner of Iraq could open up the doors for countries that might have otherwise been hesitant to participate. The U.N. can call on its wide network of trained personnel and specialized resources, saving U.S. taxpayers money and providing a genuine boost for our efforts in Iraq. We must also make sure that we are serious about last year's amendment, the Warner-Frist amendment, which declared that ``2006 should be a period of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty with Iraqi security forces taking the lead for the security creating the conditions for phased redeployment of the United States from Iraq.'' We pushed for greater oversight and required the administration to provide Congress with quarterly reports, and while we have received some information, the latest reports have not had sufficient information about sectarian divisions and the risk of civil war and our response to those risks. The Department of Defense aims to train and equip about 325,000 Iraqi troops and police by the end of the year. I want to make sure that Congress, in our budget process, holds them accountable for meeting these goals. For the sake of the U.S. troops that are on the ground, we must make sure that the Iraqi government knows that we want the security responsibilities transitioned to them. And we must make it clear that the United States is not going to stay in Iraq indefinitely. I take Prime Minister Maliki at his word. He basically has said that the Iraqi forces could take complete control of security within the next 18 months and that the new Iraqi Government could deal with the militias and that the Iraqi Security Forces would take control as quickly as possible. I think we need to continue to push that issue and to make sure that we are meeting the milestones that will help that to occur as soon as possible. We also need to make sure that the efforts on reconstruction move forward. The United States should help the Iraqis concentrate on security and development efforts in certain areas to ensure that we are demonstrating meaningful economic progress. I think again particularly in Baghdad. Protecting the Iraqi people and the civilian infrastructure should be our highest priority. Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike must have faith in their government's ability to provide access to reliable electricity, clean water, and proper sanitation. We must remember that we have to honor our commitment to our troops-- the U.S. military who have sacrificed so much. And no one on the Senate floor will ever forget the awful cost of war. In Iraq, the loss of nearly 2,500 members of our Armed Forces, and I am deeply concerned about the 18,000 that have been wounded. And just as our troops have been stretched to the limit, it is time for us to realize that our capacity for veterans' health care has also been challenged. Based on credible projections from the independent budget, composed by Veterans Service Organizations, the Federal Government is underfunding veterans' health care by at least $2 billion and the demands on the system are growing. In March, the VA told Congress they are seeing 38 percent more Iraq war veterans than they had budgeted for. So what is the impact? Some veterans are waiting more than 18 months just to get access to VA health care, and thousands of others across the country are waiting for access to care. As of the last month, more than 2,900 veterans in Washington State were waiting over 30 days to gain access to outpatient care that they deserve and have not been able to get because we have not adequately funded the veterans' health care system. Some experts suggest that one-third of the soldiers coming home from Iraq seek mental health services, and we need to make sure that we are adequately funding mental health. A lack of capacity in the veterans' mental health system has caused a VA official recently to remark that when it comes to mental health the waiting list renders care virtually inaccessible. I believe this is unacceptable and that we have to do our job and do not shortchange veterans' health care. We must give those who have stood up for us the access to care that they deserve. The United States must make sure that it does not ever condone indiscriminate or deliberate killings of civilians. The overwhelming majority of men and women in uniform are honorable and understand the rules of war and requirements of the Geneva Conventions. Any accusations of misconduct must be handled fairly by the military justice system. We should also play our oversight role here in Congress and make sure that Congress is not leaving the investigation of this issue simply up to the Department of Defense. We need to make sure that Congress is also investigating this issue and providing the accountability and oversight that everyone deserves. Whether it is detainee abuse or Haditha, we need to make sure that the U.S. image is not damaged and our efforts to win the hearts and minds both in Iraq and the war on terror are not hurt. We must make sure that we have aggressive oversight and accountability of all agencies of the Federal Government. The United States should be an example of leadership committed to treating people humanely and abiding by the rule of law and promoting opportunity and a common vision. I know that recently when British Prime Minister Tony Blair was here, he gave a speech that said: This should be a moment of reconciliation not only in Iraq, but the international community. The war split the world. The struggle of Iraqis for democracy should unite it. I believe that is what we must move forward on now too as we consider these two pieces of legislation. Congress must be aggressive in its oversight and accountability on these goals for 2006 and in turning over control to the Iraqi people. And we must make sure that we engage the international community to help us move forward in this effort. The United States should lead the way, but it should do so with sufficient international support. And then I believe we must get on to our larger goals, one that the 9/11 commission recommended to us when it said: Just as we did in the Cold War, we need to defend our ideals abroad vigorously. If the United States does not act aggressively to define itself in the Islamic world, the extremists will gladly do the job for us. So besides these objectives, we need to move forward in fighting terrorism by promoting American ideals. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as ranking member of the Fisheries and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, I am pleased to join the chairwoman of the subcommittee, Senator Snowe, in submitting a resolution regarding the policy of the United States at the upcoming 58th Annual Meeting of the International Whaling Commission, IWC. I wish to also thank my Senate colleagues Mr. Kerry, Mrs. Dole, Ms. Boxer, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Reed, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. McCain, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Dodd, Ms. Feinstein, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Levin, Mr. Biden, Mr. Dayton, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Landrieu, and Mr. Kennedy for cosponsoring as well. The resolution we introduce today comes at a time when the United States and other like-minded nations are facing new and intensifying challenges within the IWC to adopt policies detrimental to our stated opposition to commercial and lethal scientific whaling. In 1982, due to the severe impacts of whaling on the populations of large whale species, the IWC adopted an indefinite moratorium on all commercial whaling. Although Japan, Iceland, Norway, and other countries in favor of commercial whaling do not yet have the necessary three-quarters majority on the IWC to lift the moratorium, for the first time they may have the simple majority needed to control procedure and to adopt resolutions contrary to the longstanding positions of the IWC. Policies that the United States has opposed in the past, such as secret ballots and statements supporting lethal scientific whaling, could be adopted under a simple majority. As Japan and Iceland have gained support for their prowhaling position within the IWC, they have become even more aggressive in their utilization of a provision in the convention that allows countries to issue themselves permits for ``scientific whaling''. These permits are currently being used to justify killing whales in the name of science and then later selling the meat commercially. More than 9,150 whales have been killed in lethal scientific whaling programs since the adoption of the commercial whaling moratorium, and Japan has plans for a major new program that would more than double its takes of minke whales and expand such whaling to Byrde's, sei, fin, sperm and humpback whales. Furthermore, Japan plans to hunt in the commission's designated Southern Ocean Sanctuary, an area set aside off Antarctica to facilitate whale conservation and recovery. The IWC has repeatedly stated that such lethal takes are not necessary for scientific research. Sei, sperm, humpback, and fin whales are all endangered species, and hunting these species undermines the IWC's whale conservation program. As was the case last year, discussions are ongoing in the IWC to establish a framework, or ``revised management scheme,'' RMS, for any future commercial whaling, should it ever occur. In this resolution, we urge the U.S. delegation to the IWC to insist that any RMS negotiations are distinct from decisions on whether to lift the moratorium on commercial whaling and that an RMS contain provisions on accountability, transparency, and compliance. As part of any RMS language, lethal scientific whaling must immediately cease upon the commencement of any commercial whaling. The resolution also recognizes the rights of indigenous people to whale for subsistence purposes and directs the U.S. delegation to reject any attempts to compromise or equate such rights to commercial whaling. I thank Chairwoman Snowe for her collaboration on this resolution. I will continue to work with my colleagues on this issue to ensure that whales are protected under the International Whaling Commission.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment addresses the diversity lottery program. This is not the asylum program. This amendment is not the H-1B program. This is not the broad immigration program. This is the only program that was added to immigration legislation to try to get diversity from a number of countries that weren't sending immigrants to the United States. This amendment simply says, for those immigrants coming from those countries, let's try to get 70 percent of them to be of the education degrees--technology, math, science--that we need in the United States. That is a benefit to us because those are occupations and expertise which we need. It is also a benefit to those countries as these individuals gain expertise that can later be used in their countries. I urge my colleagues to support this ``best and brightest'' amendment but still leave diversity for these countries and diversity for those who are nonskilled as well.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or Clean EDGE, Act. Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and what it will take to put America on the right track. The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive, national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because, in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity that can divide us. Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal. Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge. Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it poses an imminent risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-term economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020, or about 6 million barrels of oil a day. Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil down to this: The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real competition at the gas pump. The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation. The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity sources to include more renewable resources. The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40 percent by 2020. The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public. These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward energy independence. There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction. The Senate should work its will. But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this country needs to go to secure our future. As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate. So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an energy independence plan for America.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that seeks to put America squarely on the path toward energy security for the 21st Century. Today, I am joined by a number of my colleagues in introducing the Clean Energy Development for a Growing Economy, or Clean EDGE, Act. Mr. President, this legislation is a sweeping proposal that incorporates the ideas of many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle. It is our attempt to move America forward, on a pressing issue that--as we've said many times before--poses one of the greatest national security, economic and environmental challenges faced by our generation. I am talking about the issue of energy independence, and what it will take to put America on the right track. The legislation we are presenting today is the result of a good deal of work within our caucus. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I speak from some experience when I say that developing a cohesive, national approach to energy policy is quite difficult. That is because, in so many instances, there are important issues of regional diversity that can divide us. Instead of immediately succumbing to those divisions, what we did when we began to work on this legislation was to start with a goal. Like the Manhattan Project that established America as the world's first nuclear power, and the Apollo Project that ensured America won the race to the moon, we recognized that initiatives of this magnitude must begin with a goal. When America sets a goal, America will achieve it. It takes leadership and resolve, and it takes the shared commitment of individual citizens to make it a truly national effort. But make no mistake: the people of the United States will rise to the challenge. Today, we can no longer ignore the enormous cost of America's dependence on foreign oil. It has become a crisis for consumers; it poses an imminent risk to our national security; and it jeopardizes our long-term economic competitiveness. That is why we believe that America must strive for an aggressive goal: to reduce our national petroleum consumption equivalent to 40 percent of our projected imports by 2020, or about 6 million barrels of oil a day. Next, we set out to define agreed-upon principles about the best ways we could jumpstart our Nation's effort to achieve this goal. I am proud to say that we were able to achieve a good deal of consensus on these principles. Today, we sent the President a letter outlining them, which gained the signatures of 42 of my colleagues. These principles boil down to this: The United States must launch an aggressive effort designed to ensure that an increasing number of new vehicles sold in America can run on alternative fuels--starting with 25 percent in 2010--and must launch a bold initiative to invest in the infrastructure needed to promote real competition at the gas pump. The United States must ensure that consumers are protected from gasoline price-gouging and energy market manipulation. The United States must lessen its reliance on fossil fuels and take steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions by diversifying electricity sources to include more renewable resources. The United States Governmment--our Nation's single largest energy consumer--must help lead the transition by adopting the best available fuel efficiency and alternative vehicle technologies to reduce its petroleum consumption by 20 percent over the next 5 years, and by 40 percent by 2020. The United States must level the playing field for new renewable and energy efficiency technologies by providing incentives for consumers and manufacturers to develop and deploy the next generation of fuel efficient vehicles, and by ensuring that major oil companies pay their fair share in taxes and royalties owed to the American public. These are the principles that guided us as we crafted the Clean EDGE Act. This legislation is a starting point, as we try to advance the dialogue about what it will take to put America on the path toward energy independence. There are provisions contained in this bill that we know can garner broad bipartisan support. There are others that may not have been possible to enact, before America started waking up to the costs of our energy independence. And there are other ideas that require broader debate and close scrutiny within the Senate Committees of jurisdiction. The Senate should work its will. But once again, that is the point of this legislation: to start the process; to jump-start the debate, and outline a vision of where this country needs to go to secure our future. As we have come together on this side of the aisle in recognition of the need to address the pressing issue of energy security, I know I speak for a number of my colleagues when I say I believe it is possible to come together in a bipartisan manner to pass energy legislation this summer. It is possible, if the Senate decides to put politics and partisan rancor aside. We can roll up our sleeves and get to work on crafting a real energy security plan that brings out the best in America. That process would also bring out the best in the Senate. So I am proud to introduce this legislation today, and look forward to working with my colleagues across the aisle in further developing an energy independence plan for America.