Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in May, we commemorate Asian Pacific American Heritage Month, honoring the history, culture and traditions of Asians and Pacific Americans and recognizing their unique contributions to the United States. First proposed as a 1-week event in 1977, the celebration was expanded to a full month in 1990. May was chosen because of its unique significance in the history of Asian Americans. May 7, 1843, marked the first recorded immigration of Japanese to the United States. May 10, 1869, marked the completion of the transcontinental railroad--a feat that would not have happened when it did without the labor of Chinese immigrants. The Asian and Pacific American population has a rich history in this country, especially in the Pacific Northwest. In my State, records show the arrival of Asian immigrants as early as the 1860s, while some scholars even speculate that centuries before, Chinese explorers sailed down the Alaskan coast to what is now Washington State. Today, there are over 14 million Asians and Pacific Americans living in the United States, representing 5 percent of the population. In Washington, they make up 7 percent of the citizenry. Over the past century and a half, Asian and Pacific American communities have contributed significantly to the cultural vibrancy of Washington State. Individuals within Washington's Asian and Pacific American communities have also worked to stand up for justice and make our country a better place. In 1944, Gordon Hirabayashi, a Japanese American student at the University of Washington in Seattle, took a stand against the unfair treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II when he refused to obey discriminatory curfew orders. In taking his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, he left a lasting reminder of the importance of standing up for civil rights. Last month, Washington State celebrated the retirement of one of its most influential Asian American leaders. Bob Santos, affectionately known to many as ``Uncle Bob,'' has for many years, tirelessly dedicated himself to social justice for all. As a founder and executive director of Inter*Im Community Development Association, Bob helped revitalize the International District of Seattle, build the local economy, and secure affordable housing for many of our most vulnerable residents. Under President Clinton, Uncle Bob served nobly and boldly as the Regional Director for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. His selflessness, passion and dedication embody the giving spirit that makes our Asian Pacific American community so strong. America is a land of immigrants, and our history demonstrates that we are stronger because of our diversity. Over the past century and a half, Asian and Pacific American communities have contributed significantly to the cultural vibrancy of Washington State. However, we can only live up to the promise of our diversity if we recognize the mistakes of our past and give all groups a voice in public discourse. During World War II, 227 Japanese Americans from Bainbridge Island became the first of more than 120,000 people to be placed in internment camps. They departed from Bainbridge Island's Eagledale Ferry Dock which, just last month, became the site of a moving tribute to all affected by this dark period. The name of this memorial is Nidoto Nai Yoni, meaning ``let it not happen again.'' During this year's Asian Pacific American Heritage month, we celebrate a history rich with culture and tradition. In our Asian and Pacific American communities, we must preserve the lessons of the past and recognize the great promise of the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Guard Equipment Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who have cosponsored this important piece of legislation. As a Nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare, and properly equip all of our men and women in uniform. That includes our Reserves and National Guard. The National Guard and Reserves represent an essential element of our national defense, confronting our enemies in distant lands and responding to threats of terror right here within our own borders. In Washington State, we face threats from volcanoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. The National Guard played a critical role in the emergency response following the eruption of Mount St. Helens. We have relied on the civil response capabilities of the Guard to protect our communities from wildfires, floods, and to secure our skies in the uncertain hours after 9/11. More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard responded with urgency and compassion. There are approximately 30,000 members of the National Guard currently deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. About 500 members of the Washington National Guard are among them. The men and women who serve in the National Guard are making a great sacrifice, fulfilling a distinct and important responsibility. And we owe them all of the resources necessary to safely and effectively achieve their mission. Right now, there is simply too much uncertainty and when it comes to maintaining adequate equipment levels for our National Guard. When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit. While serving abroad, their equipment becomes integrated with the greater mission. As a result, when our men and women return home their equipment does not often return with them. And too often there is no established plan or process to replace or even track that equipment once it's been left behind. As a result, too many of our National Guard units are left underequipped--lacking the necessary equipment for training or to respond to domestic civil emergencies. The numbers are clear: According to the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 Billion overseas in support of ongoing military operations. Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the time the Army could not account for more than half of all items left behind and has not committed to an equipment replacement plan, as Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires. Given the amount of equipment left behind in total, National Guard Units in other States are surely facing a similar situation. The provisions of my legislation would simply codify provisions of Department of Defense policy that are critical to providing our men and women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve. The National Guard Equipment Accountability Act would require a comprehensive report about all transferred equipment. Within 90 days of diverting equipment from any reserve unit to another reserve unit or to active duty forces, the Secretary of the Army or Air Force would be required to report it to the Secretary of Defense. The report must also include a plan to replace equipment to the original unit. Further, if a reserve unit returns from abroad but leaves equipment in the theater of operations, the Department of Defense would be required to provide a replacement plan for equipment to facilitate continued training. Finally, my amendment would require a signed Memorandum of Understanding specifying exactly how withdrawn equipment will be tracked and when that equipment will be returned. Given the current equipment situation, my legislation's provisions are crucial. Our soldiers have chosen to follow a noble and selfless path. We have a responsibility to give our active duty, reserve units, and the men and women of the National Guard, the very best resources so they may fulfill their mission as safely and effectively as possible. We must do so today and everyday for their sacrifice is immense and our gratitude is profound.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the National Guard Equipment Accountability Act. I want to thank my colleagues, the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, and the co-chair of the Senate National Guard Caucus the Senator from Vermont, Senator Leahy, who have cosponsored this important piece of legislation. As a Nation, we have a solemn duty to honor, prepare, and properly equip all of our men and women in uniform. That includes our Reserves and National Guard. The National Guard and Reserves represent an essential element of our national defense, confronting our enemies in distant lands and responding to threats of terror right here within our own borders. In Washington State, we face threats from volcanoes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters. The National Guard played a critical role in the emergency response following the eruption of Mount St. Helens. We have relied on the civil response capabilities of the Guard to protect our communities from wildfires, floods, and to secure our skies in the uncertain hours after 9/11. More recently, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the National Guard responded with urgency and compassion. There are approximately 30,000 members of the National Guard currently deployed to places like Iraq and Afghanistan. About 500 members of the Washington National Guard are among them. The men and women who serve in the National Guard are making a great sacrifice, fulfilling a distinct and important responsibility. And we owe them all of the resources necessary to safely and effectively achieve their mission. Right now, there is simply too much uncertainty and when it comes to maintaining adequate equipment levels for our National Guard. When our Reserves and National Guard are deployed on operations overseas, they are deployed with equipment from their unit. While serving abroad, their equipment becomes integrated with the greater mission. As a result, when our men and women return home their equipment does not often return with them. And too often there is no established plan or process to replace or even track that equipment once it's been left behind. As a result, too many of our National Guard units are left underequipped--lacking the necessary equipment for training or to respond to domestic civil emergencies. The numbers are clear: According to the Department of Defense, the Army National Guard has left more than 75,000 items valued at $1.7 Billion overseas in support of ongoing military operations. Last October, the Government Accountability Office found that at the time the Army could not account for more than half of all items left behind and has not committed to an equipment replacement plan, as Department of Defense (DoD) policy requires. Given the amount of equipment left behind in total, National Guard Units in other States are surely facing a similar situation. The provisions of my legislation would simply codify provisions of Department of Defense policy that are critical to providing our men and women in uniform with the protection and resources they deserve. The National Guard Equipment Accountability Act would require a comprehensive report about all transferred equipment. Within 90 days of diverting equipment from any reserve unit to another reserve unit or to active duty forces, the Secretary of the Army or Air Force would be required to report it to the Secretary of Defense. The report must also include a plan to replace equipment to the original unit. Further, if a reserve unit returns from abroad but leaves equipment in the theater of operations, the Department of Defense would be required to provide a replacement plan for equipment to facilitate continued training. Finally, my amendment would require a signed Memorandum of Understanding specifying exactly how withdrawn equipment will be tracked and when that equipment will be returned. Given the current equipment situation, my legislation's provisions are crucial. Our soldiers have chosen to follow a noble and selfless path. We have a responsibility to give our active duty, reserve units, and the men and women of the National Guard, the very best resources so they may fulfill their mission as safely and effectively as possible. We must do so today and everyday for their sacrifice is immense and our gratitude is profound.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Elie Wiesel once told us that ``a destruction, an annihilation that only man can provoke, only man can prevent.'' Our American heritage calls upon each of us to stand up, to speak out, and to act when we witness human rights abuses. As a global leader, the United States has a special and solemn obligation. We must live up to this responsibility. This week marked both Armenian Remembrance Day and Holocaust Remembrance Day. In the final years of the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, the world witnessed the mass killing of as many as 1.5 million Armenian men, women, and children. Five-hundred thousand survivors were expelled from their homes. Our U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau organized and led protests by foreign officials against one of the most horrible tragedies of the 20th century. Sadly and almost unimaginably, more human devastation followed. Later years witnessed the Holocaust--the Nazis' systematic state-sponsored persecution and murder of 6 million Jews. In 1945, the U.S. Third Army's 6th Armored Division liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp and the U.S. Seventh Army's 45th Infantry Division liberated Dachau in Germany. We reflect in order to remember--honoring the dead, pledging never to forget atrocities of the past, and fighting to stop them today. In 2004, then-U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that genocide has been committed in the Sudanese region of Darfur. A consistent, widespread, and terrible pattern of atrocities and burning of villages continues as the situation in Darfur remains grim. I believe the U.S. must lead urgent international efforts to stop the killing in Darfur. We must act immediately, working with the United Nations, NATO, and the African Union to stop the ongoing violence. We must remain focused and never waver in our fight to bring an end to the genocide.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will consider this. This Senator will continue to be vocal on passing Federal legislation to make price gouging a crime. I hope this is legislation that we can take up in the next several days, or at least in the next weeks, so we are giving consumers before the Memorial Day recess the confidence that we have serious teeth in Federal legislation to protect them at the pump. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor and join my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who have been here for the better part of today, discussing the President's comments this morning about energy legislation and about price gouging and about the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission investigation of energy prices. Many of my colleagues here in this body know how important this is, and how important it is that we move forward. Yet I think we have actually been investigating for months. The fact remains that we need to do a more aggressive job in looking at the issue of price gouging. Fifty-seven Senators here supported legislation in November of last year, giving the tools to the FTC, the attorneys general, and to individuals who are responsible at the Department of Justice to investigate price gouging. It is that same legislation that I think would help us in moving forward today, giving consumers confidence as they head into the summer driving season that we are doing everything in our power to get serious about a Federal price gouging ban and that we are going to make it a Federal crime. This legislation would create a new ban on price gouging during national energy emergencies, giving the President authority to declare that emergency. It would give the Federal Trade Commission and State AGs and the Department of Justice the ability to levy civil and criminal penalties for proven price gouging up to $3 million and 5 years in jail. And, on an ongoing basis, it would put in place a new ban on market manipulation and giving false information to the FTC or the Department of Justice. If you think about it, it is similar to some of the requirements for those involved with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the standards they are required to meet. This bill also gives the FTC the authority to levy fines up to $1 million for each violation of market manipulation, that is the market manipulation and false information prohibitions in this legislation. Some people would say $1 million for price gouging doesn't sound like a lot of penalties, but this is $1 million for each violation of the market manipulation ban. If you think about it, in the context of the market manipulation that is being discussed right now in the Enron trials, on an ongoing basis there were probably hundreds of instances of market manipulation related to Enron. My colleagues and I offered this price gouging legislation on the floor and it received 57 votes, so I think it is time the Senate comes together on a very aggressive approach to tell consumers that we will protect them this summer. The reason I say it is imperative we do this now is because for the last 5 years in the West we have suffered through the aftershocks of the western energy crisis. That is, we have suffered the consequences in my State of the market manipulation that Enron engaged in. And five years later, really, we have gotten very little relief from Federal regulators on that issue. What happens during periods of dysfunctional markets, where there is a lack of transparency, is that many people are hurt. Businesses are hurt, individual consumers are hurt, even school districts are hurt. We had one school district in Washington state that basically had to pay $2 million in additional energy costs because of Enron and manipulated energy prices, and thereby ended up not hiring teachers or buying books. All this leads to a simple and inescapable conclusion. And that is, when it comes to energy commodities that power our economy, we have to be very aggressive at protecting consumers. We need to do everything in our power right now at the Federal level to put us on the right course and to fashion legislation that will help protect consumers now. If you think about the President's request, he is saying the Department of Justice and the FTC should investigate. We do not even have the authorities and remedies in current law that would help in pursuing these cases and bring these individuals or corporations to justice if market manipulation is found. So I encourage my colleagues to move quickly on legislation that would give the Federal government the true tools we need to investigate market manipulation and to pursue remedies on behalf of consumers. Let's not wait several months into the summer season, as consumers are already being hurt at the pump, to come to this conclusion. Since we have already had 57 Senators, a majority of the Senate, support this legislation, why not pass it out of the Senate and give consumers the confidence that, as they hear the earnings reports from oil companies in which they are making billions in profits, we are not going to give them a pat on the back. Instead, we are going to give a helping hand, to protect American consumers at the pump this summer, as these prices are expected to continue to rise. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1735 Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Commerce Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1735 and that the Senate proceed to immediate consideration of that legislation, that the Cantwell amendment which I am sending to the desk be considered and agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without intervening action or debate.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 with my colleagues Senators Lautenberg, Kerry, and Wyden. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90) was passed shortly after the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989, spilling 11 million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's pristine Prince William Sound--the largest spill in US. history. OPA 90 revolutionized oil spill risk management and we have OPA 90 to thank for improving oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. However, in a report and testimony recently provided to Congress, the U.S. Coast Guard identified serious shortcomings in our oil spill management system. First, in a report transmitted to Congress on May 12, 2005, the Coast Guard noted that the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund was in danger of being depleted. And they noted that every state or U.S. territory has received money from the Fund for oil spills. Without the Fund, states would have to provide funds for these emergency events. Through legislation that I cosponsored last year with Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, which became law as part of the Energy Policy Act, we solved part of this problem by reinstating OPA 90's per-barrel fee on oil, in order to replenish the Fund, and raising the total level of principal from $1 billion to $2.7 billion. However, the Coast Guard also noted that the costs of oil spills increasingly exceed the liability limits for responsible parties that were set back in 1990. Under OPA 90, responsible parties can be reimbursed for costs above their liability limit from the Fund--and this practice continues to deplete the Fund. This issue also was highlighted at a field hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Fisheries and Coast Guard that I chaired last August in Seattle, where the Coast Guard testified that the current limits are too low. The bill I introduce today will increase these caps so that we return to the ``polluter pays'' principle enshrined in OPA 90. The devastating hurricane Katrina also led to an historic number of oil spills. The Coast Guard has estimated that such spills could amount to close to $1 billion. If these claims are made against the Fund, the Fund will be quickly wiped out. That's why the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would ensure that such claims would be covered through the Stafford Act process and supplemental funding, and not through the regular claims process of OPA 90. Finally, this bill would require improved accountability of how monies from the Fund are expended by Federal agencies. The Coast Guard also testified in our hearing that we must remain vigilant in our efforts to prevent oil spills. According to Coast Guard data, although the number of oil spills from vessels has decreased enormously since passage of OPA 90, the volume of oil spilled nationwide is still significant. In fact, vessels spilled 665,432 gallons of oil in 1992, while in 2004, the total was higher, at 722,768 gallons. Significant numbers of spills are still occurring. In 2004, there were 36 spills from tank ships, 141 spills from barges, and 1,562 spills from other vessels, including cargo ships. And even though the number of spills from tankers declined from 193 spills in 1992 to 36 spills in 2004, a single incident from a vessel like the Exxon Valdez can be devastating, as the recent Athos I incident in the Delaware River and Bay demonstrates. The bill I introduce today addresses a number of key areas to improve prevention and response. Because human error is the leading cause of accidental oil spills, the Coast Guard would be required to identify and pass regulations to address the most frequent sources of human error that have led to oil spills from vessels and ``near-misses.'' It would require the Coast Guard to ensure the safety of single hull tankers and other high-risk vessels by increasing inspections of such vessels. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 also would require the Coast Guard to address and reduce the increased risk of oil spills from oil transfers. It would also make companies who knowingly hire substandard single-hull tank vessels after 2010 ``responsible parties'' in order to provide a disincentive for such contracts. Of particular importance to my state, the bill would provide a mechanism for year-round funding of the Neah Bay rescue tug, a central element of the oil spill prevention safety net for Washington state's outer coast. It would also increase oil spill preparedness in the Strait of Juan de Fuca by changing the definition of ``High Volume Port'' for Puget Sound to make the westerly boundary begin at the entry to the Strait. This change would require oil spill response equipment to be stationed along the entire Strait and not just east of the current line at Port Angeles. In addition, the Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would require improved coordination with federally-recognized tribes on oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response. Finally, the bill would codify into federal law the establishment of the Oil Spill Advisory Council, which was created by the Washington State Legislature and Governor Gregoire in the wake of the October 2004 Daleo Passage Oil Spill. My bill would provide $1 million annually to support the Council's important work. The slow response to the oil spill in Dalco Passage in the Puget Sound was largely attributed to difficulties with detecting the oil that was spilled. The Oil Pollution Prevention and Response Act of 2006 would reinvigorate a federal research program on oil spill prevention, detection, and response, and would establish a grant program for the development of cost-effective technologies for detecting discharges of oil from vessels, including infrared, pressure sensors, and remote sensing. It would also require the Secretary of Homeland Security, in conjunction with other federal agencies, to conduct an analysis of the condition and safety of all aspects of oil transportation in the United States, and provide recommendations to improve such safety. This was a specific recommendation of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The Department of Justice has also noted that a major category of oil spills are intentional discharges of oil from vessels. The United States cannot address this problem alone. Thus, the bill would require the Coast Guard to pursue stronger enforcement measures for oil discharges in the International Maritime Organization and other appropriate international organizations. Oil spill prevention and response is timely for Congress' consideration because waterborne transportation of oil in the United States continues to increase, significant volumes of oil continue to be released, and the potential for a major spill remains unacceptably high. Recent spills involving significant quantities of oil have occurred off the coasts of Alaska, Maine, Massachusetts, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington, and involved barges, tankers, and non-tank vessels. One thing we've learned from these spills is that it is more cost- effective to prevent oil spills than it is to clean-up oil once it is released into the environment. We've also learned that although double hulls and redundant steering do increase tanker safety, these technologies are not a panacea and we need to do more to ensure against oil spills. The Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the Nation's natural resources, public health, and environment by improving Federal measures to prevent and respond to oil spills. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise in support of this amendment offered by my colleague from Missouri who has played a leadership role in trying to tackle a very difficult problem that is impacting various parts of our country. It is unfortunate the parts of our country that have seen this problem have to come to the Senate and wage this battle to convince people who have not had this problem occurring in their communities how important it is. I say that because if we do not fight meth and combat it on a nationwide basis, we will see the meth problem continue to grow across the country. That is why this particular amendment is so important. Two weeks ago we took an important step in combating this crisis by passing legislation to actually authorize a comprehensive program to combat meth across the country and in the Hot Spots Program. In Washington State, we have seen methamphetamine grow, first being the second State in the Union with the number of meth drug labs. Only with a comprehensive approach by law enforcement, prevention, and a variety of people in the community were we able to lower that ranking from second in the country down to fifth in the country. While we have made some progress, unfortunately, we pushed the problem to our neighboring State to the south and Oregon became the No. 1 spot in the country for meth labs. As we have lowered the number of meth labs being discovered in Washington State, we also saw a different effect taking place, an actual increase in the number of deaths related to methamphetamine. We saw the superlabs coming in, in bigger and stronger positions, trying to continue to move this deadly product through our communities. What the Combat Meth Act does is provide resources to State and local Governments, law enforcement and investigative teams in shutting down labs, investigating the violent crimes, educating the public, and helping children impacted by this terrible product. In one county alone--the Presiding Officer will understand because it is a neighboring county to his State--in the city of Spokane, 90 percent of identity theft and 70 percent of burglaries are related to methamphetamine. During the bust of meth houses in Spokane County, police find children at least 50 percent of the time. This is a problem that is much more comprehensive in the impact it is having on communities than people realize. When we have a meth house in a community, it not only impacts that particular neighborhood and community, but it impacts law enforcement who also have to come in and investigate and clean up the drug labs. We know of law enforcement officers injured from trying to fight this problem by not having the proper equipment when going into these locations. This is a problem that is not small or isolated or one that is going to be fought and won in 1 year's battle. That is why we need to support this amendment today and continue our efforts, not just authorizing but actually appropriating the resources to fight this problem. We must continue to be true to what we have said, that we believe this battle is worth fighting and that we are going to provide the resources to do so. I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership on this issue. I am sure the people of Missouri, as in Washington State and other places throughout the country who have this problem, know how important it is to battle this issue. It is important we realize a comprehensive approach is showing success. In Washington, we have seen a comprehensive approach has actually educated more people and the public to understand how one use of methamphetamine can be so addicting and lead to such a devastating result, for individuals, families, communities, and to everyone impacted in its path. I applaud my colleague from Missouri for his leadership. I am glad to join him in this bipartisan effort. I also congratulate Senator Feinstein who has made this a priority, and to our budget leader for his help in this issue. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the PATRIOT Act. Like many of my colleagues, I am confronted with a very difficult decision. There are rarely easy answers in the Senate and today is no exception. The healthy debate we have had in this body over the last few days has been vigorous and valuable. Today, we have a solemn obligation to protect our Nation from those who may bring terror into our homes. At the same time, we have a responsibility to respect our rights and honor our privacy. These principles are not mutually exclusive: we can and must achieve both. This is one of the most significant pieces of legislation shaping our ability to resist and eliminate terrorist activity on our home front. Our actions today will have tremendous consequences in the lives of all Americans in months, years, and decades ahead. I am proud that in the rush and passions surrounding this bill, I have worked with my colleagues to insist on a serious, patient, and transparent debate in the Senate as we strive to find the right balance between protecting our civil liberties and fighting terrorism. Despite my reservations and after great deliberation, I support reauthorization today. I believe that we must not allow the PATRIOT Act to expire. With new provisions and improved meaningful oversight secured at last, empower our national leaders and policy makers with the accountability, wisdom, and prudence to use this legislation's powers in a way that does not undermine the freedoms we seek to protect. Under provisions of this conference report, the Federal Government must now provide public information on its use of intelligence gathering tools like national security letters and FISA warrants. What is more, this legislation provides for formal audits of these programs. We must play close attention in order to learn lessons of the past and prevent abuse in the future. I will join my colleagues in strongly pursuing additional sunset provisions I believe should have been included in this bill, to give Congress the opportunity to reassess whether these tools are yielding the intended results in the war on terror. We have already made some critical reforms to implement meaningful oversight. We have managed to get some of the most controversial provisions to sunset in another 4 years, despite the administration's desire to make them permanent. We have started with sunsets on the roving wiretaps and record requests from businesses and libraries. They are not enough, but they are a start. Because of an important vote we took yesterday, we have removed America's libraries from the purview of national security letters. We're allowing recipients of records requests to challenge the gag orders on the requests and have removed disclosure requirements for the names of attorneys assisting with those challenges. We are seeing improvements on disclosure for ``sneak and peek'' warrants. But I want to be clear, new powers must not be allowed to chip away at traditional privacy rights. We must closely watch how law enforcement uses these tools and be prepared to confront all abuses. I believe that many provisions of the bill, particularly those sections dealing with electronic eavesdropping and computer trespass, remain seriously flawed and may infringe on civil liberties. And that is why I will continue our work to improve these protections even as we implement them. At a time when we are making permanent broad powers for our law enforcement and intelligence communities without the full traditional safeguards of judicial review and congressional oversight my concerns have been exacerbated, truthfully, by the administration's explicit attempts to go around both the courts and the Congress with their wiretapping and secret listening posts. So as the FBI and other agencies continue to expand and evolve, so will their powers. We will continue to ask who should be watching the watchers in oversight. There is clearly more work to be done--Chairman Arlen Specter and Ranking Member Pat Leahy have worked together and are introducing legislation that addresses many of my outstanding concerns. I will be on that bill--we have made meaningful reforms. I also want to thank Senator Feingold for his continued dogged support for reform of this bill. I want him to know that I stand with him in the battle to gain further reforms. Also included in this conference report is some good news for port security. Sadly, there is not the funding that we have repeatedly asked for from this administration--but at least new criminal penalties for smuggling goods through ports. There are tools to help crackdown further on money laundering overseas by terrorist organizations. Finally, I am very pleased that the conference report includes essential and long overdue resources to combat our Nation's surging methamphetamine epidemic. Meth, as a problem in our communities, will not simply disappear on its own. We must make it a top priority and work to end it together. That's why I had introduced similar legislation to address meth use, manufacture, and sale, and create a law regulating the commercially available products used to make meth, such as pseudoephedrine. And that's why I am so glad to see the Combat Meth Act included in today's legislation. I was proud to cosponsor this legislation when Senators Talent and Feinstein introduced it, and I am pleased that it will be signed into law, providing comprehensive reforms and critical resources. The legislation enforces strict regulations and keeps records so that meth producers can't get their hands on those key ingredients. When a similar type of law was enacted in Oklahoma, it reduced meth lab busts in the state by 80 percent. This legislation also provides valuable resources to State and local governments for law enforcement officials investigating and shutting down labs, investigating violent meth-related crimes, educating the public, and caring for children affected by the drug's scourge. The bill also confronts international meth trafficking new reporting and certification procedures. My State, Washington, is sixth in the country in meth production. In 2004, 1337 meth lab sites were discovered in Washington State. That same year, 220 fatalities were linked to the drug. And we are first in the country, when it comes to the number of children found on raided sites. It is clear this is neither a small problem not an isolated one. But these aren't just numbers. They are parents and children, individual people with terrible stories of struggle and addiction. Acting here and now, to fight this epidemic, we can provide the resources to and protect our Nation's families and communities. The events of September 11 have changed our country and its people forever. We were attacked on our own soil. Thousands have died; thousands were injured. Very simply, we must do all that we can to stop terrorism by finding and ending terrorist activities here and abroad. Our challenge is to do this without compromising the values that make Americans so unique. They are the same values that have allowed our Nation to become great: respect for personal autonomy and the rights of the individual; and tolerance of all regardless of race or religion. They are the values that have always guided our Nation's leaders. It was Benjamin Franklin who said essentially: Make sure we have our liberties. Make sure we protect the people from ourselves. Those who would give up their essential liberties for security deserve neither and get neither. We must defend both. We must maintain and take full advantage of meaningful oversight to ensure power is never abused. While I will vote for this bill, I will also continue to work to improve this bill. I will continue to be vigilant and urge those working defend and secure our Nation to use these powers wisely and with great deliberation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman, Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100 years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls. However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children. Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5 million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000 acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as Roadless areas under the legislation. The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests. The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as ski trails. What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads. Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001, following three years of official review and public participation, over 600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region. During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule. But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless forest land protections. The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on those roads and trails. The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support, including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000 Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001 Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club. I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining. Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The American people and future Americans deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise along with Senators Bingaman, Harkin, Lautenberg, Boxer, Lieberman, Clinton, Menendez, Akaka, Dodd and Kerry to introduce the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. Since Teddy Roosevelt established the national forest system 100 years ago, we have cherished these amazing public lands. They have provided both timber for our economy, and quiet solace for our souls. However, only a fraction of the vast natural forests that once covered our nation remain. I believe it is our duty to protect these lands before we have no natural forest legacy to pass on to our children. Simply put, the Roadless Area Conservation Act of 2006 represents a balanced and reasoned approach to forest management on untouched public lands. This legislation reasserts safeguards in place in 2001 to protect our nation's the last remaining pristine forest lands, 58.5 million acres, from logging, road-building, and other environmentally damaging development. In Washington State alone there are 2,015,000 acres of National Forest system lands that qualify for protection as Roadless areas under the legislation. The bill would prohibit new road construction or reconstruction in inventoried roadless areas while maintaining opportunities for hunting, fishing, hiking, mountain-biking, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and other forms of outdoor recreation in our National Forests. The legislation also includes a number of important exemptions to allow new road construction for human health and safety, oil and gas development, and other previously approved economic activities, such as ski trails. What is more, it allows for hazardous fuels reduction, forest stewardship projects, and targeted economic activities. This legislation also helps address the serious fiscal challenge presented by the more than $8.6 billion dollar maintenance and reconstruction backlog on the 386,000 miles of existing U.S. Forest Service roads. Of course, this might not sound new. And you'd be right. In many ways, we've travelled these roads before. The Clinton Administration finalized the Roadless Area Conservation Rule in January 2001, following three years of official review and public participation, over 600 public meetings--45 public meetings in Washington state alone--and hearings on each National Forest and in each Forest Service region. During his confirmation hearing I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft if the administration would uphold the Roadless regulation. He pledged that he would. In May 2001, then-USDA Secretary Ann Venemen also pledged that the administration would stand by the Rule. But that's not what happened. Through a series of subtle yet unmistakable steps the administration has allowed these protections to be undermined steadily. They've rolled over for logging companies and developers. They've cooked up loopholes for State-based petitions or settlements that could weaken or eliminate the protections afforded to these unique lands. And finally, in May of 2005, they dropped the pretense altogether when the U.S.D.A. Forest Service repealed the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, eliminating these vital roadless forest land protections. The need for action today is more urgent than ever. These are national forest lands that provide unmatched outdoor recreation opportunities, critical fish and wildlife habitats, and promote clean drinking water for millions of Americans. This bill would not apply or effect state, tribal, county, municipal, or private lands and does not impact existing U.S. Forest Service roads, trails, or activities on those roads and trails. The 2001 Roadless Rule has received unprecedented public support, including over four million comments submitted to the U.S. Forest Service asking that it not be overturned. Most recently, over 250,000 Americans, including over 100 current and former Olympic athletes, have filed a formal petition under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) to reverse the Bush Administration's decision to eliminate the 2001 Rule. This legislation enjoys the support and endorsement of such groups as National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, the Heritage Forests Campaign, the Wilderness Society, and the Sierra Club. I've worked to protect these pristine forest lands since the day I came into office, and I'll keep fighting to make sure this bill gets signed into law. We've heard it loud and clear: Americans don't want to see their hunting, fishing, and hiking areas turned into a reckless patchwork of road-building, logging, and mining. Let's act today and pass the Roadless Conservation Act of 2006. The American people and future Americans deserve nothing less. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield my 1 hour of postcloture debate to the Democratic leader.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate a great American innovator. It is a special pleasure to recognize an exceptional company which today has earned the prestigious National Medal of Technology, the highest honor given in our Nation for technological innovation. PACCAR Incorporated is a model of success and a Washington State institution. In 2005, the company celebrated its 100th year in business. You might not recognize the PACCAR name, but perhaps you have heard of some of PACCAR's finest brands: Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks. PACCAR is one of our Nation's top truck manufacturers and today they are cited for: ``pioneering efforts and industry leadership in the development and commercialization of aerodynamic, lightweight trucks that have dramatically reduced fuel consumption and increased the productivity of U.S. freight transportation.'' This National Medal is a distinct honor bestowed by the President since 1985. It was first mandated by Congress in 1980, established to recognize the significant contributions that America's leading innovators have made to the Nation's economic strength and standard of living. The award is given annually to individuals, teams, and/or companies or divisions whose work has made a lasting impact on our lives through the development and commercialization of groundbreaking technology in our Nation. Past recipients include leaders in our Nation's cutting-edge science and high-tech communities--companies such as Dow, Dupont, and Corning or individuals such as those who have performed the first human heart transplant and invented the first whole-body CT scanner. The National Medal serves to honor the legacy of innovation that has made our Nation a technological leader for more than two centuries. And it seeks also to inspire the future generations of innovators who will keep our Nation strong for years to come. This year, PACCAR, a Bellevue, WA company has earned this special recognition. But what, you may ask, do a lot of big rigs have to do with science and innovation? Well, PACCAR has time and again led the industry in the design and manufacture of fuel efficient and lightweight trucks. They were the first to use a diesel engine in a heavy-duty truck. They were the first to introduce a truly aerodynamic truck design. And they were the first to use lightweight composites and aluminum in truck suspensions on a large scale. It would be difficult to name a single innovation in the recent history of truck design without finding a PACCAR product at its foundation. These advances have required both significant investment and no small amount of risk. But PACCAR's faith has paid serious dividends to the truck buyer, the consumer, the economy, and the environment. For too long, heavy-duty trucks couldn't improve beyond a weak 10-mile-per- gallon fuel efficiency ceiling. But today, thanks to Peterbilt's and Kenworth's transformation, they have soared above and beyond that mark, significantly altering the economic and environmental forces at play in the market. PACCAR's example has shown that it makes sense to support and advance fuel efficient technology, not only to protect our precious natural resources and reduce our dangerous reliance on foreign oil but also to help our economy thrive and grow. We would be wise to note PACCAR's model as we develop a comprehensive strategy for thoughtful investment in our energy future. Day and night in all 50 States, PACCAR's trucks travel our Nation's highways--roads that have no end, constantly curving, folding and merging into one another. In our complex world of commerce and the vast transportation system on which that world relies, change is great and inevitable. PACCAR recognizes this beautiful evolution, embraces it, and seizes the opportunities it creates. I rise to congratulate PACCAR Incorporated. It has made Washington State proud, it has made our Nation strong. The National Medal of Technology they receive today is well deserved.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I was saddened today to learn of the death of Coretta Scott King. Her work and life gave one man great strength and inspired a nation. In a lifetime, suffering and pain can envelop communities and span generations; it can also touch us intimately and immediately. When her husband was assassinated in April of 1968, Mrs. King suffered a world of loss in one moment. She persevered with passion and devotion, honoring the movement her husband made so strong. She taught the world that carrying on a great legacy requires more than simply remembering the words of the dead, but requires imbuing those words with action, life, leadership, and vision. Mrs. King has left our Nation a vital legacy of her own.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President I rise to discuss the nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court to the United States. After closely and carefully studying his record and recent testimony before the Judiciary Committee, I have decided to vote against Judge Alito's confirmation to the Supreme Court of United States. Of course, it is vital that any lifetime appointee to the highest court in the Nation possess the breadth of experience and character necessary to review the most significant, complex, and far-reaching legal questions of our time. But that is not enough. I see disappointing and clear evidence in Judge Alito's long record, rulings, and statements of dangerously skewing the balance and relationship between our branches of Government. I do not expect any nominee to the Supreme Court to predict and promise with certainty how he or she will rule in any and all future cases. But I do expect nominees to make clear that they would protect the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. Yet I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either. Indeed, I question whether he would show due respect for the authority of Congress or apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive. Serving as that check has long been one of the Court's most solemn obligations. Today, that role is more important than ever. We have seen evidence of a National Security Agency's eavesdropping program operating in question of a legal framework and without due oversight. We are seeing literally, in wartime, a President reach without probable cause or warrant at the expense of individual rights and the most basic protections of the Constitution. Yet it is a question whether Judge Alito would adequately control that reach. Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual. Consider, for example, how Judge Alito would give virtually unfettered authority to the police to trample on the clear privacy protections given to every American as demonstrated in his 2004 dissent in Doe v. Groody. In this case he would have upheld the strip search of a 10-year-old girl and her mother, despite the fact that they were not suspected of any crime nor named in any search warrant. When asked at his hearing about this case, and his minority opinion, Judge Alito repeatedly sought to portray it as ``a rather technical issue,'' a question of whether the police affidavit should be incorporated into the warrant itself, and suggested that the police were operating under time pressure. These claims are inconsistent with the facts, as made clear by Judge Alito's colleague, then-Judge Michael Chertoff, now Secretary of Homeland Security. According to Judge Chertoff, the approach advocated by Alito in Groody ``might indeed transform the judicial officer into little more than the cliche `rubber stamp.''' The American people deserve a Supreme Court Justice who understands how important privacy rights are to all Americans, even the most vulnerable. They deserve more than just a rubber stamp. History shows that our courts have often stood up to Presidential overreaching during wartime: protecting the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War; forbidding the president from authorizing domestic warrantless wiretaps during the Cold War; and in the War on Terror by an 8-to-1 margin, the Supreme Court held that the President cannot indefinitely detain American citizens without allowing them to challenge their detentions before a neutral decisionmaker, another power this administration had claimed. Worse still, in areas where precedent is sparse or dated--such as the war on terror and the executive's power to carry it out--Judge Alito's record and testimony suggests that he is far more likely to defer to the ideological ambitions of our President than the protection and rights of our citizens. To be sure, there is nothing wrong with an aggressive executive, especially at times of great peril. An aggressive executive, however, also requires a strong and functional Congress, the responsive voice of the people. I have questions, however, if Judge Alito's rulings will narrowly define the law and therefore threaten the authority and ability of Congress to govern effectively and affirmatively. Writing in Chittister v. Department of Community & Economic Development, Judge Alito wrote that parts of the Family and Medical Leave Act, FMLA, which allow employees to leave when they or family members are seriously ill, were not applicable against the States. When passing the legislation Congress had identified the importance of both men and women in caring for young children and family members with serious health conditions. Congress also pointed to the burden that family caretaking imposes on women. But Judge Alito denied those findings. He saw no ``existence, much less the prevalence, in public employment of personal sick leave practices that amounted to intentional gender discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.'' This view essentially deflated Congress's ability to defend civil rights. He wrote: ``Even if there were relevant findings or evidence, the FMLA provisions at issue here would not be congruent or proportional. Unlike the Equal Protection Clause, which the FMLA is said to enforce, the FMLA does much more than require nondiscriminatory sick leave practices; it creates a substantive entitlement to leave. This is `disproportionate to any unconstitutional conduct that conceivably could be targeted by the Act.''' The Supreme Court later rejected Alito's position on the FMLA. Ultimately, the Commerce clause is about understanding Congress's power to protect our families and its ability to respond to threats that immediately affect those families. In February, for example, the Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the scope of the commerce clause in two critical cases that could restrict the geographic jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act to one percent of its current coverage. In my State, we know how fragile our precious natural resources can be. The Pacific Northwest is blessed with incredible beauty. But habitat loss and other pressures threaten some of my State's most iconic species, salmon that spawn our great rivers and birds that depend on old growth forests. We also know that how we treat those resources and that wildlife speaks to our priorities as a people and a nation. How do we value our communities and ensure their safety? How do we honor an individual's freedom and his or her rights? While I do not expect any judicial nominee to prejudge future cases, I do expect all nominees to make their positions clear on protecting the most basic rights of individuals and the fundamental structure and foundations of our democracy. In the end, I cannot be sure that Judge Alito would do either. As I mentioned earlier, I believe that Judge Alito has a record of concern when it comes to placing and consolidating the rights of the government over the rights of the individual, and he has not provided the answers to adequately reassure the people of our Nation. I must conclude that he would neither show due respect for the authority of Congress nor apply a necessary check to the reach of the executive. With great respect for the institution, I cannot vote to confirm Judge Alito to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Did I understand--

Ms. CANTWELL. I think I understand that the Senator from Alaska asked for additional time.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 3 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Michigan.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the remaining 2 minutes to the Senator from Illinois, who has been hard working on this subject.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if I could be notified when I have used 5 minutes. I rise today to ask my colleagues to reject this cynical ploy that has brought us to this point today. Just a few days before the holidays, we are presented with this Defense bill that has become a Christmas tree. It is a Christmas tree decorated with giveaways and back-door exemptions, and special rules for the oil industry. We have been debating the topic of ANWR for 25 years. No one should condone such a blatant maneuver as taking the bill that provides funding for our men and women in uniform, and stuffing into it a provision that was in neither the House nor Senate bills; a provision that gives away to the oil industry the ability to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; a provision that hasn't gone through the normal rules and processes that any other business in the Senate would have to go through. This Senator strongly objects to these provisions for Arctic drilling on the merits of the issue. I welcome a debate on the merits of the issue. But regardless of those issues, my colleagues should understand that every Member of this institution should object to the way this provision has been added to this legislation. These measures were slipped into the Defense spending bill, and they are a violation of the Senate rules. What is more, these provisions were changed after the bill was voted out of conference. After my colleagues had signed the conference report, the language related to ANWR was changed. So not only was it not in the House or Senate conference bills, it was changed after members had signed their names to the conference report. Madam President, this is a frontal assault, as my colleague, the Senator from West Virginia said, on the institution, on the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to consider, what is next? If we are to allow legislation like this to move forward, what do we have to look forward to in the future? Will we be drilling off the coast of Florida? Will we be drilling in the Great Lakes? Will we be drilling anywhere, just because it can be put in a defense measure? I ask my colleagues to make sure that we send a message that is loud and clear, that we are not for breaking Senate rules. Over the last week or so there have been more than 20 different editorials from papers across the country, from New Hampshire to Oregon, from Minnesota to Florida and elsewhere around the country, talking about these issues and why we should not be in this situation. From the Oregon newspaper--basically it said this is a shortsighted plan, and it is ``disgusting that lawmakers would try to equate oil profits with our Nation's true defense needs.'' Another newspaper in New York said it was an eleventh hour ploy in Congress by Republican leadership, lowering the bar and slapping Alaskan oil drilling onto a must-pass bill to pay for the Iraq war. Another criticism from the Oregonian: A vote for the Arctic is not a vote against our Nation's military. We are not going to be blackmailed into passing this legislation, just because someone at the eleventh hour sticks this language in. I saw in a news commentary, the Scarborough Report--this from somebody who supports drilling in Alaska--who basically said that this provision is a ``politically toxic rider to funding our troops in Badhdad, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and across the world. It is unforgivable,'' this tactic. And the military, retired leaders sent a letter saying: . . . any effort to attach this controversial legislative language authorizing drilling to the Defense appropriations conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our troops and their families with the resources they need in a timely fashion. We did not have to get to this point. We did not have to get to this point today, where Members are being forced to vote on drilling in the Arctic just because we have to pass a Defense appropriations bill. I ask my colleagues to consider this. I do believe in a different view than this legislation when it comes to energy independence. I do believe that being dependent on foreign oil at more than 50 percent today is too much. There is no way we are going to drill our way to energy independence in the United States. God only gave the United States 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, so we should move off of that and on to other supply. Today we are here as Senators to say whether we are going to allow the Senate rules to be broken; whether we are going to try to pass some language that never appeared in any Senate bill, but mysteriously appeared in this conference report at the eleventh hour. I do not think we should give a green light to oil companies in this fashion, giving them the ability to circumvent seven Federal laws and countless regulations, regulations with which every other business in America has to comply.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. I will consume another minute. I hope the Senate will turn down this language, that we will make sure we do not give an exemption to oil companies from all these laws, and that we certainly do not do so on the backs of our military men and women. I yield the floor and yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the disturbing reports of political chaos in Ethiopia. With allegations of vote tampering and emerging pictures of large-scale human rights abuses taking place in Ethiopia, that the administration must impress upon Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and other global neighbors, that severe consequences follow actions which undermine democratic ideals. Ethiopia held its first ever democratic elections on May 15, 2005. Revelations since then of violence and mass detention of Ethiopian citizens by the Me1es government are not only alarming and disconcerting to me and the American people who have supported the country in its effort to advance the cause of democracy. It is regretful to have to witness a regress in democratization. Roughly 90 percent of Ethiopia's populace turned out for the democratic election. Rather than a sentiment of accomplishment or progress, the mood of the country remains nihilistically somber. According to international human rights observers, increased repression of the Ethiopian people is connected to the seeming loss of power from the ruling Meles government to the opposing party, the Coalition for Unity & Democracy, CUD--has shown by early vote counts during the election. With the Meles government accused of voting irregularities, it is not surprising that the people of Ethiopia protested the unofficial election results. Recent reports of human rights abuses in Ethiopia range from arrest and intimidation by government authorities and illegal arrests of innocent people, including ranking members of the CUD party and media representatives, to the loss of life. For example, some 14,000 people were detained when riots ensued following the election. Among other journalists, Getachew Simie, former editor of the Amharic-language weekly, and Leykun Dngeda, former publisher of the Dagim WonchifWeekly, have been given jail sentences for covering the anti-government protests. Even Prime Minister Meles reported that 48 people were killed last month in relation to the unrest caused by the alleged fraud in the May polls. Prime Minister Meles must fulfill his good faith commitment to human rights. With any successful transition to democracy, civil society requires the firm accountability of its government authorities. Until the Meles government brings an end to the intimidation of its people, political unrest will remain high and America's support for the democratization of Ethiopia will be muted by concern for the country's political instability.