Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. CANTWELL. Parliamentary inquiry.

Ms. CANTWELL. Is the agreement to have the time evenly divided between both sides and no specific request for how the sequencing of time is allocated under the order?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes of my time to the Senator from California.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I reserve the balance of my time. I see the Senator from New Mexico seeks recognition.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Several other articles that I will go through include the Roanoke Times, that this legislation is in pursuit of secrecy around this issue. The Orlando Sentinel: Drug firms don't deserve virtually unlimited protection against vaccines lawsuits that would shield manufacturers. The Raleigh, NC newspaper: Wrong way immunity. One more, the Las Vegas Sun, titled ``Vaccines and accountability: Bush's proposal to shield avian-flu vaccine makers from liability invites health problems.'' I ask unanimous consent to have those printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. The Times-Tribune of Scranton, PA, said: . . . the prospect of a pandemic is being used by Congress to pander to the pharmaceutical industry. And: Congress should not use legitimate concerns about a flu epidemic as a wedge to protect the manufacturers from liability. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. We can see from the editorials there are many people paying attention to what is in this Department of Defense appropriations bill. I should say, because my colleagues all have a copy of the legislation on their desk but they may not have dug deep into these many pages to see, that they should pay special attention to language starting on page 434 about a liability provision exempting drug manufacturers. It was alarming enough to me to have the ANWR language, but certainly to have additional language that is thrown into this bill as these various editorials have said, at a time without the review and the complexity of the legislation being discussed is wrong. I hope my colleagues tomorrow will think about their votes on this process and to say that the Defense bill and appropriations should be about the troops. It should be about protecting our country. It is about giving them resources. It should not be about backdoor attempts or legislative blackmail to say force Members to vote for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or this drug liability provision. I hope my colleagues will read this legislation carefully. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, many of my colleagues have been on the floor talking about the importance of the votes tomorrow, and I want to remind my colleagues that I do think that these votes are important for the Senate process. I am very disturbed, as are many of my colleagues, that we have moved forward with the Department of Defense appropriations bill that includes language to open up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as well as a provision allowing drug manufacturers to be protected from liability from lawsuits for vaccines that they make. I think most of my colleagues thought we were going to vote on a Department of Defense appropriations bill tomorrow that was going to help our troops and give military pay raises and help provide security for our Nation. The last thing I think many Americans think is a nexus to that is drilling in the Arctic Refuge, particularly when many Americans believe we don't have enough energy independence and need to get over our over dependence on fossil fuels. I hope my colleagues understand how important this issue is. We have been contacted by military leaders, retired military leaders who have said: . . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language authorizing drilling in ANWR to the defense appropriations conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our troops and their families the resources they need. . . . This coming from retired military personnel who thought it was so important they actually sent a letter saying they were concerned that this legislation would hold up funding for our troops. That letter has previously been printed in its entirety in the Record. We have also been contacted by the Retired Military Officers Association. These are individuals, too, who want to see legislation go through because they want to make sure the men and women in the military receive their increase in pay and take care of the troops overseas and get all the enforcements they need in a Defense bill. But they also wrote to us saying: We are concerned that the insertion of any divisive, non- defense related issues at the last minute could further delay the enactment of this crucial legislation. So military leaders from around our country are saying they do not like the antics of putting ANWR drilling, a very divisive issue that has been debated for 25 years, into a Defense appropriations bill. This is coming from the military men and women who want to see a clean defense appropriations bill. I should say to my colleagues that there are other people watching this issue as well. We have newspapers across the country that are also calling out for Congress to be more responsible on this legislation. They are hearing the complaint, as I am, from many parts of the country about this legislation and the way it has been put together. The Statesman Journal in Salem, OR, states that some U.S. lawmakers are still trying to scheme and allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I heard my colleague talk about the vote tomorrow and the process. I just wish to emphasize that while there will be points of order as it relates to the budget and the budget process allowing for a budget point of order and the rules of the budget as it relates to this bill, the Defense appropriations bill, there is language in here that I believe is outside the scope of this legislation and should not be allowed. I hope my colleagues understand that is one of the possible votes tomorrow--on whether this language on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, as my colleague from Michigan said, has no inclusion, neither in the House nor Senate original proposal, has no place showing up in a conference report in the eleventh hour. That is why we are hearing from people all over the country about how absurd it is to include this in the legislation. I hope, if my colleagues are forced to have a vote on upholding the ruling of the Chair, that they will realize they are really overturning the Senate rules if you disagree with the ruling of the Chair on this issue. This is not the same as the budget process. It is part of our Senate rules. The Senate rules, as the Senator from Michigan read, are very clear. You can't include things in a conference report that were in neither House nor Senate version. But that is exactly what the Senator from Alaska has tried to do. Alaska will likely get, from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, $5 billion in bid bonuses. I actually think that this proposal, even for an Alaskan, is shortsighted. America needs to be diversifying into alternative fuels like biofuels, and be focusing on lightweight materials that help us be efficient. I think that is why this newspaper in Oregon calls this plan shortsighted, that it is disgusting that lawmakers would try to equate oil profits with the Nation's true defense needs. That is what newspapers across the country are saying about this legislation. I believe they are right because we are doing a great disservice to the men and women in the military by continuing to talk about this issue without being specific to the fact that we are adding something that should never have been put in this legislation. Another Oregon newspaper, the Oregonian also said that Arctic drilling has been thrown into the Defense bill, and it is an emotionally charged matter of supporting the troops at a time of war, and it does not belong there. This is from another newspaper: It doesn't belong there. Americans are watching and paying attention to the fact that this legislation was thrown in at the eleventh hour. I believe we should pull it out and get on about our business of passing a Defense appropriations bill. Let me mention another issue that I am sorry is in this legislation. I have for the Record several editorials that I would also like to submit for the Record on this issue of immunity for drug and vaccine manufacturers. There are several here that deserve being a part of the Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to.

Ms. CANTWELL. The Toledo Blade editorial said: Congress and President Bush have acted sluggishly in protecting the nation from public health emergencies, but they can move at lightning speed when it comes to helping their friends in the pharmaceutical industry. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. For example, the Register-Guard--I don't know why Oregon is paying so much attention to what is happening, but they are on top of things--says in an editorial, ``Unjustifiable protection against lawsuits,'' making sure to protect the drug companies is an immunity deal for vaccine makers that has been slipped into the Defense bill. They think it is unjustifiable. Another paper, the Vindicator, a Youngstown, OH, newspaper with the headline: ``Trading on fear by passing legislation is wrong.'' It says that when legislators begin attaching complex legislation with far-reaching effects to must-pass bills, a tactic designed to grease the way for passage with virtually no debate, people should be alarmed. I ask unanimous consent these articles be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. The St. Louis-Dispatch, ``Vaccines: Shot in the dark.'' Nor is there any reason to provide extraordinary liability protection for drug companies making bird flu vaccine. It may be attached to a defense appropriations bill . . . that would be a big mistake. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to raise my concerns about this process and the unbelievable avenues through which this legislation is coming before us, just to try to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling. As my colleagues have just been discussing on the floor, these are priorities, for Congress to pass the DOD appropriations bill and the DOD authorization bill. As this Senator sees it, we could wrap up this business today and go home. But because a provision in this legislation coming over from the House opens up drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, you bet there are Members on this side of the aisle-- Members on both sides of the aisle in the House and Senate--who have great concerns over this measure. As one Senator who would like to wrap up the year today and go home and spend time with my family, I know there are the prospects of us staying here to fight for something we believe in. It is very clear that we could go home today if the Senator from Alaska would agree to take this language out of the bill. So, in fact, this process is being held up over the fact that he has inserted a controversial measure into this legislation. It is such a controversial measure that House Democrats and Republicans refused to vote on a budget bill while it still remained in the legislation. That gives you some idea of how controversial it is. In fact, they took it out of the budget bill because they could not get the budget bill passed with it in there. Now my colleague wants to say that somehow he is not holding up the process when it is very clear that he is holding up the process. We could all go home today instead of arguing over something that has been argued over for 25 years. There is a reason we have been arguing over it for 25 years, and that is because there has been great division over this issue. The notion that this is about national security is unbelievable to me. To me, what national security is really about is passing a clean DOD appropriations bill that gives resources to our troops. In fact, we should give the military in Iraq the ability to do a better job protecting the security and infrastructure of the pipeline there. We lose 800,000 barrels a day of oil in Iraq that could be part of helping the Iraqi government get on its feet and the rest of the world energy markets stabilize. But this ANWR measure is holding up a DOD bill instead of giving the military all the resources they need. We are not talking about an oil supply 10 years from now; we are talking about something we should be doing today in terms of securing existing infrastructure. We should strip this ANWR language out and pass this bill. I understand the Senator from Alaska thinks this ANWR provision is in the interest of some, because I think it is in Alaska's interest. In 2005, petroleum counted for 86 percent of the State of Alaska's general revenues--86 percent of their State revenues. In fact, according to a published article, State officials expect that at least until 2013, 74 percent of Alaska's general purpose revenues will come from oil revenues. So I get why the State of Alaska cares so much. In fact, CBO recently calculated that Alaska will get $5 billion in revenue from this legislation if it is passed. Of course Alaska cares about this. Of course Alaska would hold up the legislative process and keep us here extra days to get this bill passed and get ANWR in by hook or crook, any possible way. Of course they would. But don't say that this is in the national interest. What is in the national interest of our country is to get over our overdependence on foreign oil. We need to start doing that now, as well as get off of our overdependence on domestic oil and fossil fuels in general. Instead of implementing this Arctic drilling program, we ought to be implementing policies that help us diversify and move forward, so people can have affordable energy rates in this country and not be held hostage by these special interests. It is another thing to say, somehow, this legislation has arrived here through a clean process. The fact is you would basically have to overrule the Parliamentarian--which is our judge here. It is basically like going to a Federal court, having a judge rule on something, then when the judge rules on it voting to overturn them, and then a few minutes later reinstating the rule. If that isn't a quick fix around the legislative process here, I don't know what is. But this whole ANWR measure, trying to get it on any piece of legislation that is moving, has been exactly that--every attempt to make the process go without adhering to the rules. The fact is this legislation comes to us and basically takes away about seven different laws that would otherwise apply to drilling in the Arctic. It really is--it is a free ride, a back door that circumvents seven different Federal laws and countless regulations that have been on the books for years. So this is not just passing ANWR; this is basically giving the oil companies a sweetheart deal around Federal laws and regulations that no other company has ever gotten. I guarantee, Scoop Jackson would roll over in his grave. There is no way Scoop Jackson would support drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge when you are overturning a law, the National Environmental Policy Act, that he wrote. So you can mention Scoop Jackson's name a thousand times, there is no way he would support this process. Did you ever ask yourself why he didn't just authorize it to begin with? I think he knew exactly what he was doing. He wanted further review, and he certainly wanted environmental laws to apply. But, no, this legislation basically overrides the environmental statutes. It creates ill-defined environmental standards. It has a waiver for the lease and sale of land and cuts off the Secretary's ability to protect environmentally sensitive areas, and it allows the Secretary to lease an unlimited amounts of coastal plain. It takes a weak reclamation standard and basically hamstrings the Federal agencies that are supposed to do their job when it comes to protecting federal lands. Maybe it is no surprise that, after trying to stick this on the budget bill, having both Democrats and Republicans in the House defeat it, now there is an effort to try to stick it on the DOD appropriations bill. In this Senator's opinion, this is nothing more than legislative blackmail, to try to get colleagues to vote for something because it is a must-pass bill. That's because, in fact, the proponents of this measure know that there is great opposition to this process and to drilling in the Arctic. I know the Senator from Alaska said in the Fairbanks paper that he was not going to hold up the process. But newspapers across the country know exactly what is going on. In fact, the Oregonian just said a few days ago: Arctic drilling has been thrown in with the defense bill and the emotionally charged matter of supporting American troops at a time of war. It does not belong there, something that ought to be obvious to all but the most cynical members of Congress. All but the most cynical Members of Congress should see that this is obvious. We actually had a letter from military leaders, military leaders in our country, raising the same concern: . . . any effort to attach controversial legislative language authorizing drilling to the Defense appropriations conference report will jeopardize Congress' ability to provide our troops and their families the resources they need in a timely fashion. That is coming from General Zinni and many others who wrote to us saying, don't do this. This is crazy. We want to get about the process of getting a DOD bill passed. The New Hampshire newspaper said: He has threatened to attach the provision to the Hurricane Katrina relief bill or to the defense appropriations bill, a cynical ploy. . . . Trying to attach this, basically, should be rejected. Both approaches should be rejected. Even my newspaper in Seattle called this, ``dubious congressional standards of fair play,'' because they know that this situation is one in which any legislative rule will be thrown out, just to pass drilling in ANWR. We know that this issue is not without controversy. We know the oil spills of the past are raising great concerns for people. If they have raised so many great concerns for us, why would we give a blanket pass to drilling in ANWR and overthrow those Federal rules and regulations that apply everywhere else? Why should we go to the extent of trying to attach it to a bill that has to pass, knowing that you are going to ask Members to overrule the Parliamentarian and then, after you basically have tried to overrule him, then go back and say the Parliamentarian was right? How far are we willing to go? How many rules are we willing to break in this process just to get a small amount of oil 10 years from now? What the American people want is for us to do our job and send money to the troops and get them home. They do not want to sit and watch us stay here for 3 or 4 more days to continue to complain about this process. What they want us to do is pass legislation that gives the troops the support they need. Let us give the troops the money they need to make sure that 800,000 barrels a day are protected right now. Let's do a better job of making sure we're making the right infrastructure investments, which will help everybody. Let's make sure that gets done. But this Senator still remains in opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, because you can't tell me that 5,504 spills on an annual basis in the North Slope since 1996 is a good track record. You just can't tell me that all those oil spills in the Prudhoe Bay area and near the Trans-Alaska Pipeline constitute a good enough track record to now say you can open up drilling in an Arctic wildlife refuge and have no impact. Last year, those spills totaled more than 1.9 million gallons of toxic substance, mostly crude oil and diesel. We know where this is heading. We know where it is heading with no great result for the United States. We are not going to see any oil for a long time. It is a time in which the United States should be making an investment in diversifying off of our dependence on oil instead, and supporting our troops. This Senator plans to talk a long time about this issue. This Senator knows that we could be going home today, having finished our work, having a session that is ended, having Members back at home talking to their constituents and having the troops realize that we didn't play politics with their legislation. I hope we will get about doing business here today and closing this legislative session. That's what we should be doing instead of figuring out what three or four other rules in the process need to be broken just to try to pass ill-conceived legislation that we have been battling over for 25 years. Let us not hold the troops' money hostage. Let's pass this legislation in a clean fashion and get home to our families. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, my amendment is based on S. 1735 which has been sponsored by about 29 of my colleagues. I certainly appreciate the fact that this amendment is being cosponsored by Senators Bayh, Schumer, Boxer, Carper, and Lieberman. I thank my colleagues for paying attention to what I believe is a very important issue for us to address before we adjourn; that is, the issue of price gouging and the fact that the Senate should say loud and clear that we think price gouging should be a Federal crime. That is exactly what my amendment does. It creates a new Federal statute to make sure that consumers are protected from price gouging. How did we arrive at this point? While my colleagues, I am sure, would like to adjourn and continue to think about the complications and challenges, the American economy is being hurt by the high price of gasoline, as we saw this summer prior to Katrina. Certainly, we are anxious about the winter months and home heating oil and the costs that consumers are going to pay when they get their bills in the next couple of months. It is important to note that Americans will spend over $200 billion more on energy this year than they did last year. That is hundreds of billions of dollars coming directly out of family budgets and the bottom lines of businesses across the country. The airline industry is expected to spend $30 billion more on fuel alone this year, which is twice what they spent in 2003. In fact, if you look at what the airline industry is expected to lose this year, it is about $9.5 billion. If you look at the increase in the expense of fuel costs for the airline industry, it is $9.2 billion. For the airline industry, there is a high correlation between their actual loss and the amount they are paying in higher fuel costs. For the trucking industry, where diesel fuel accounts for almost a quarter of their operating expenses, each penny increase in diesel fuel costs the trucking industry $350 million a year. And what about our farmers who are obviously on low profit margins--about 5 percent--and their challenge? Well, they have had a combination of record diesel fuel costs and price increases of fertilizer of more than 20 percent. So it makes it very challenging for the American farmer to be competitive in this kind of environment. What about the Air Force? I know the Presiding Officer is interested in the Air Force. The Air Force energy budget is expected to increase 50 percent this year, costing taxpayers another $400 million. Even the Postal Service is paying higher fuel prices, expecting to add another $300 million to the Postal Service transportation costs. And what about the taxpayers? Well, they pay every week at the pump for higher fuel costs and they want us to protect them. But I don't know if they know that the taxpayers are even paying more for the President's travel. According to reports, the per-hour fuel cost for the travel of Air Force One has increased from $3,974 to now $6,029. The cost of energy integrated into our economy is costing us all more money and at a time when we are seeing oil companies reach record profits and billions are being sent to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela. I guarantee you do not have our interests at heart. I am offering an amendment today to say that price gouging is a Federal crime and we should pass this before we adjourn. Why is it so important to pass new Federal legislation? First, there are 28 States in America, the District of Columbia included, Gulf States such as Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, that currently have price-gouging statutes on the books. These States have taken legal action to try to make sure that gas distributors or service stations or oil companies are investigated when allegations of price gouging have occurred, and certainly when you have a state of emergency as we have had after hurricanes. So these State statutes are the very statutes we are saying ought to be in Federal law. As to examples of how these have been prosecuted at the State level, retailers have been charged with unconscionable pricing attributed to an increase in unreasonable wholesale gasoline prices or because gasoline, oil, or fuel commodities in general are raised to what is an unconscionable price. We based this on what is a New York statute that has been upheld in court. I think it is very important to note that the Federal court system has taken this term of unconscionable pricing and has Federal case law related to it. Why did we get to this point? We got to this point primarily because current Federal law and the focus of the FTC has been whether there has been collusive pricing activities by these oil companies, collusive meaning whether they got together and fixed the price. That Federal statute gives very little room to investigate and examine what I believe are key issues about supply and demand. We hear a lot from the oil industry that this is about simple economics and supply and demand. I guarantee you we ought to be demanding more information about the possible manipulation of supply and why supply was exported out of the United States at a time when it was so needed for American consumers. We need to pass a Federal price-gouging law to make sure that the current law on the books does not leave us emptyhanded when coming to pursue this issue and to make our point in protecting the American consumers. This last week we heard from attorneys general at a joint hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee and the Senate Energy Committee talking about this issue. One attorney general from New Jersey, Peter Harvey, who has utilized his own statute on antiprice gouging, told us: We need a Federal price gouging statute that applies nationwide to the sale of essential goods and services. I am also pleased that the attorney general from New York--as I said, we have based this statute on New York law--has also championed this legislation in a letter of support that I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Attorney General Spitzer says: Accordingly, there are levels in the chain of distribution where Federal assistance would be both helpful and appropriate . . . Currently, the FTC can act against such companies if they unlawfully agree to fix price, but cannot act if unfair practices occur simultaneously but without collusion. I think the Attorney General of New York has it right as to why we need this Federal statute. We also want to make sure we are recognizing in the next several months what further damage is going to happen to the economy if we do not act, that is, if we leave here without getting a good Federal statute on the books. For example, in my home State a farmer from Lamont, WA, wrote to tell me that his fertilizer prices have gone up 75 percent since May and 100 percent since last year, and fuel costs have gone from $2 to $3.15. Another eastern Washington farmer told me he is paying more for a gallon of fuel than he received for a bushel of grain. So these farmers are looking at this issue, and as Senator Roberts said the other day, the agricultural industry is facing something like a category 5 fuel and fertilizer hurricane. We can't leave these farmers emptyhanded this winter as we go away, without enacting a good, strong Federal statute. Home heating oil is another issue in which consumers are going to feel an impact. For an American family, it is believed that they will pay an average of $306 or 41 percent more this winter than they did last winter. So we certainly want to implement the Federal statute to protect them during these winter months. I can tell you people are worried in my State. Unfortunately, our local jurisdictions are doing their best, but I think it shows what kind of anxiety Americans have about being able to keep warm this winter. In my State, in Whatcom County, after the Whatcom County Opportunity Council advertised last week they would take up the low-income energy assistance applications but would only take 200 walk-ins or the first 400 phone-ins, they had over 200 people line up outside their doors, some people standing outside all night long, just to receive assistance from this program, and the local phone service, Verizon, called to say that the unusual volume of incoming calls trying to get energy assistance basically crashed the system for the entire area. I can tell you consumers are anxious about these high fuel costs. We are dealing in the Senate with airline bankruptcies and pensions. I can tell you the airline industry has been hardest hit by the increase in fuel costs. As Southwest Airline CEO Steve Kelly told the Seattle Times recently: We are now facing energy prices that no airlines can make money at, at least with today's [ticket prices]. I want to make sure we do not have other pensions that are defaulted on, other people losing their jobs or their life savings because we have not enacted tough legislation saying that price gouging is a Federal crime. The amendment I am offering today does a couple of things. First, it creates a ban on price gouging during a national emergency declared by the President of the United States. As I said earlier, the antiprice gouging standard is based on the successfully tested New York State statute. Second, it gives the FTC and AGs and, because it creates criminal penalties, the Department of Justice the authority to levy civil and criminal penalties for proven price gouging of up to $3 million and 5 years in jail. Additionally it puts in place a new ban on market manipulation and falsifying information to the Federal Government about fuel prices, which is based on a provision of the Energy bill we passed here this year related to electricity and natural gas, trying to stop the market manipulation that happened in response to Enron and the market manipulation in the western energy crisis. In addition, the bill gives additional remedies available to the FTC to levy fines up to $1 million for violation of market manipulation and false information. I am very satisfied that this bill has the teeth in it that we need in a strong Federal statute to over the next several months give the Federal Government, attorneys general, and others the ability to prosecute market manipulation of energy prices. Why do I think this is so important? My colleagues have been on the floor talking about the questions that were asked to oil company executives this week, the questions about whether they cared about tax incentives or tax breaks, whether they participated in energy meetings. My questions were more about the supply of fuel here in the United States and whether we have a greater understanding about the protection and possible manipulation of that fuel supply. Now for my colleagues in the West who have been out on the floor, we have reeled from an energy crisis on electricity, and my colleagues, Senators Wyden from Oregon and Feinstein from California, all had economies that were very hurt by the manipulation of the electricity market. In fact, there are some cases in Federal courts now talking about the manipulation of natural gas prices. So I guarantee you with five refineries in the State of Washington, we are doing our part at refining fuel, but we still have some of the highest gas prices in the Nation and had those prior to Katrina, so my constituents want to know what are we going to do to make sure the prices are not manipulated. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from attorneys general across the country who are also supporting my legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am also submitting this letter for the Record because I think the attorneys general who are chief law enforcement officers across the country for their individual States said it well. If there is no market manipulation going on, then no harm, no foul. It does not mean this is an automatic incrimination; it simply means we have a good Federal statute in place. I certainly appreciate the support of those attorneys general who have signed this letter in support of this legislation. What we found in our hearings--and the attorney general of Arizona brought this up--is over the last several years the oil industry has moved to a new inventory prop called ``just-in-time inventory.'' Just- in-time inventory is a great idea for the oil industry because it actually saves them dollars because they don't have the same amount of inventory they used to. It used to be that oil companies had a 20 to 30-day supply inventory. Now they only have about 3 to 5 days of supply. You can imagine if you only have 3 to 5 days of supply versus 30 days of supply, the price is going to be different. Here is what Attorney General Terry Goddard said: Just in time delivery almost leaves no cushion when supplies are delayed. He testified that: The entire oil industry has moved to this just in time delivery system vastly reducing the number of refineries available on a nationwide basis and minimizing inventories at stage site. The effect is a constant and precarious supply- demand balance which is exceedingly beneficial to the industry in lowering operating costs but harmful to consumers so that supply is set at a fragile stage where price spikes can occur. I applaud the attorney general from Arizona for pointing out how important this inventory issue is and how it ought to be investigated. The Energy Department itself had a similar analysis. It found in a 2003 study: The reduction of spare capacity has helped drive up the price at the pump and leaves the market vulnerable to shortages caused by plant breakdown or other unpredictable events. So even the Department of Energy knows the supply issue is what can drive price spikes. But what we want to know is whether oil companies are purposely exporting product. I asked a question at the hearing I thought was very important; that is, have oil companies ever exported oil products to foreign countries for a cheaper profit than they would have gotten if they would have kept the supply in the United States? The reason I asked this question is because I wanted to know if they were artificially trying to limit supply in the United States just to drive up the price. One would think that is not something they would do. They, obviously, want to sell in the United States. There is one case in the West that we have been very sensitive to, according to the Oregonian newspaper that has reviewed what had been secret reports and documents basically found that BP/Amoco systematically jacked up west coast oil prices by exporting Alaskan crude oil to Asia for less than it could have sold it to U.S. refineries. So there is a specific example where an oil company exported product for cheaper profits just to have less supply in the United States to drive up the overall market. That, I think, is exactly what my amendment is trying to get at. According to the Department of Energy, between January and August of this year, over 48 million barrels of refined product was exported out of the United States. As my friend, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Kohl, points out, that is 24 times the amount that is stored in the Northeast heating oil reserve, a critical safety net in times of shortage. One can imagine that my colleagues want answers to why they would export 48 million barrels of refined product at a time when, if you would have kept it in a heating oil reserve for the Midwest, it might actually keep prices down in the Midwest this winter. As I said, I have already had enough of this as it relates to Enron. In 2001 I sat in a lot of hearings in the Energy Committee and heard from a lot of different people testifying that the electricity market had nothing to do with manipulation. It was all about the fact that some environmental laws prevented us from building enough supply. After 3\1/2\ years of investigation, we found out there was a lot of manipulation going on that terms such as Fat Boy, Get Shorty, and Ricochet were schemes perpetrated on the consumers of the western energy market just to manipulate supply. So you can bet we want to know whether supply is being manipulated in a similar fashion in oil markets today, and we want answers. The only way to get answers is to put a new Federal statute on the books that says price gouging is a Federal crime and to give the Federal agencies the tools to prosecute that crime. I feel very strongly that this body needs to act on this legislation before we adjourn. We need to get this to the President's desk and get it signed. I know my colleagues are going to offer amendments about various tax proposals and tax incentives, whether the oil industry wants those or doesn't. But I care about what is happening to the consumer, to the American farmer who is really getting squeezed out of his family farm, to those flight attendants and pilots who are losing their pensions because we have seen a 293-percent increase in jet fuel costs over 5 years, and to the small businesses in my State that can't exist on low profit margins when they see a 50-percent increase in home heating and fuel costs. So I want to protect consumers, not just now, but if this crisis happens again in the future, I want consumers to be protected. I hope we can pass this legislation in a good bipartisan effort, that my colleagues will support every effort right now to protect consumers as we head toward the winter months, and we act responsibly in giving Federal regulators the statutes they need to prosecute these crimes. Mr. President, I also would like to add Senators Clinton and Salazar as cosponsors of the amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. My amendment makes price gouging a Federal crime. It does two things. It implements what is in 28 different States the law to make sure consumers are protected from price gouging, and it gives the FTC, the Department of Justice, and State attorneys general the ability to look at market manipulation as a Federal crime when energy markets are manipulated. I urge my colleagues to support, at a time when we are going home to high heating oil prices, something that will protect consumers by giving new tools to the Federal statute.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections of the act for consideration of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a Senate resolution commemorating the bicentennial of Lewis and Clark's remarkable arrival on the Pacific Coast. I am pleased that Senators Murray and Wyden are original cosponsors of the resolution. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark's epic journey explored and charted the western frontier of our fledgling Nation. This journey was America's great odyssey. It marked our Nation's coming of age and represents its core values: courage, innovation, perseverance, and opportunity. And two centuries ago, they reached their destination. On Nov. 7 1805, William Clark wrote in this in his journal: Great joy in camp, we are in View of the Ocean, this great Pacific Ocean which we been so long anxious to See and the roaring or noise made by the waves breaking on the rocky Shores may be heard distinctly. It's no wonder he was so excited. Their expedition began a year and half earlier and 4,000 meandering miles east. President Thomas Jefferson had charged them with finding the most direct, practical water route across the continent. When Clark wrote that they had seen the Pacific on that day, 200 years ago, he was slightly off target. They were actually 25 miles away, in the Columbia's widening estuary. Dangerous storms, wind, rain, and waves battered them without relent. They were trapped for 6 days and forced to hunker down at the spot we now call Clark's Dismal Nitch. When the weather finally cleared, they moved west to Station Camp. They set down for ten days and got their first real glimpse of the Pacific. Expedition-member Sgt. Patrick Gass wrote: ``We could see the waves, like small mountains, rolling out in the ocean.'' Station Camp also marks the spot where Lewis and Clark held a historic democratic vote among all of the group's members--including Sacagawea and the African American slave, York--to determine where the expedition should stay for the winter. On November 19, William Clark took 11 expedition members from Station Camp on an excursion beyond camp, and for the first time saw a full view of the Pacific Ocean. That land, now called Cape Disappointment, marks the westernmost point of their journey. Its name belies the great hope and joy that moment inspired in our travel-worn heroes. Today, in Washington State, you can visit these historic locations and find that hope again. Dismal Nitch, Station Camp, Cape Disappointment: In addition to Oregon's Fort Clatsop and other nearby state parks, they comprise America's newest national park. I introduced legislation with Representative Brian Baird to create the Lewis and Clark National Historic Park: to preserve those beautiful and precious lands, to build local tourism, and to educate future generations. Last November, President Bush signed it into law. This November, we celebrate an incredible bicentennial. Lewis and Clark produced the first maps and charts of a previously undocumented region. They created an invaluable record of the native cultures, the flora, and the fauna they encountered on their journey. Prior to the expedition, the United States' claim to the Pacific Northwest, was tenuous at best, based on American sea captain Robert Gray's discovery of the Columbia River in 1792. And so: Lewis and Clark's expedition, more than a decade later, was crucial to securing the claim. It was crucial to the eventual creation of all the States in the Pacific Northwest. More fundamentally though: their task was to explore the unknown. In doing so, they expanded the boundaries of our Nation and pushed the limits of what we were capable, as a people. It was not easy for them; it rarely is. But many have come after Lewis and Clark. Inspired by their spirit, we have transformed our great Nation many times over in those 200 years. We would be wise to turn to Lewis and Clark again, as we confront so many critical challenges before us today. Only by truly reaching beyond our grasp, can we make our Nation great, as Thomas Jefferson said: ``from Sea to Shining Sea.'' I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to share my views on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2419, the Energy and Water appropriations bill. While I support this legislation, I do have significant reservations about certain provisions of the conference report before the Senate today. Most significantly, I am very disappointed with the funding level included for Hanford Site cleanup. The Federal Government has a legal and moral obligation to cleanup the Hanford site and its nuclear legacy. The President budget sets the tone for the appropriations process. I was very concerned when the President's request slashed funds by more than $290 million from last year levels, jeopardizing compliance with cleanup milestones and putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk. Among the most important risk reduction projects are the cleanup and treatment of waste stored in underground storage tanks near the Columbia River. At the Hanford site there are 177 underground storage tanks containing more than 53 million gallons of radioactive and toxic waste. Sixty-seven of these tanks are known to have leaked, allowing at least 1 million gallons of waste to seep into the soil. Tank waste cleanup is critical to the overall effort in Hanford. I am extremely concerned about a recent report from the Department of Energy Inspector General that found significant problems with the administration's plan for tank waste cleanup in the C-Tank Farm. The audit found that the Department of Energy was overly optimistic and failed to account for problems encountered during previous retrieval operations. The Department has known since January of this year, before the presentation of the President's budget, that the scheduled C-Tank completion date of September 2006 would likely be missed and project costs would more than double. Falling behind on the C-Tank Farm cleanup will jeopardize long term tank cleanup commitments. Despite those challenges, the Department cut the tank cleanup program by $62 million in its fiscal year 2006 request. That request forced Congress to work within an incredibly limited budget environment to restore at least some of the funding necessary to keep tank cleanup on track. Fortunately, we could add $27 million in the conference report. I remain concerned, however, that the Department has yet to publicly acknowledge that it will miss the C-Tank Farm Tri Party Agreement milestone, nor has it committed to adequate funding in fiscal year 2007. I urge the Department of Energy to quickly respond and propose a new appropriate cost estimate and cleanup schedule. In order to fully reduce risk we must have the facilities necessary to treat the toxic and radioactive waste from Hanford tanks. The timely construction of the vitrification plant is critical to reducing risk and protecting our citizens. The facility was designed to treat most of the waste removed from the 177 underground tanks before its storage at the Hanford site or a national depository. But in the face of design challenges, the administration's budget cut funding for vitrification plant construction--setting it at $58 million less than fiscal year 2005 funding levels. The Department said it needed to reduce funding in order to address the seismic issues with the design of the facility. Despite both Houses of Congress supporting funding levels for the vitrification plant at least at the President's request level, this conference report reduces funding to $100 million below the already-low fiscal year 2006 request. This level of funding would be $158 million less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriations level. Remarkably, the President has proposed a rescission of an additional $100 million in previously appropriated vitrification plant construction funds to address hurricane recovery efforts. In his letter to the Congress, the President labeled plant construction as a lower priority Federal program. This cut comes at the same time that the administration has noted that the cost of the vitrification plant has increased by at least 25 percent. And language in the underlying report estimates that the cost of the plant may rise to $9.3 billion. Yet this administration continues to cut funding, jeopardizing long-term cleanup milestones. I urge the administration to drop its proposed $100 million rescission, set forth a clear cost and schedule for the completion of the vitrification plant, and fund the vitrification plant in a way that does not jeopardize the health and safety of our region. I do not support the funding levels for Hanford cleanup in this year conference report and hope that the administration will make a clear commitment with its fiscal year 2007 request. The Federal Government must keep its commitment. I hope the current administration will back its words with clear action.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to offer a perfecting amendment. In order to raise the $2.4 billion claimed in the underlying bill, it assumes a 50-50 split of oil leasing revenues between the State of Alaska and the Federal Treasury. But my colleagues may be surprised to learn that whether or not this 50-50 legislative language is upheld in court is a matter of some uncertainty. The State of Alaska has long maintained it is due 90 percent of these revenues, so instead of the Federal Government getting $2.4 billion, it would only get $480 million. If you don't believe me, the State of Alaska just passed a resolution this spring, saying it would insist on the 90-10 split. I ask my colleagues to be faithful in telling the taxpayers the real story. Let's support maintaining the 50-50 and not moving forward until we are certain that is $2.4 billion of revenue for the Federal Government.