Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to rise today with my colleagues Senators Bingaman, Rockefeller, Lincoln, Murray and Corzine to introduce the ``Affordable Access to Medicare Providers Act.'' Securing access to affordable healthcare, especially for our Nation's seniors, is critical and it remains to be one of my top priorities. Access to healthcare is impacted by two key factors: we must have enough well qualified healthcare providers that are willing and able to accept Medicare patients, and the beneficiaries must be able to afford the premiums required to utilize their Medicare benefits. This bill addresses both of these issues--it will provide some stability in physician Medicare payment rates so that physicians can continue to offer high quality healthcare services while ensuring that the Medicare beneficiaries are not saddled with the cost and even higher premiums for physicians services. Medicare was written to cover the most basic health care for seniors. When the original bill passed in 1965, the legislation's conference report explicitly stated that the intent of the program is to provide adequate ``medical aid . . . for needy people, and should ``make the best of modem medicine more readily available to the aged.'' While the Medicare Modernization Act provided some improvements such as: It also had some unfortunate consequences on the Medicare beneficiaries in Washington State. Medicare payments per beneficiary will be further exacerbated and continue to penalize Washington state for our efficient healthcare system. Fifty-seven percent of Washington state physicians are limiting or dropping Medicare patients from their practices. Washington falling to 45th in the Nation on reimbursements will not help the situation. A survey conducted by the Medicare Payment Advisory Council, MedPAC, found that 22 percent of patients already have some problems finding a primary care physician and 27 percent report delays getting an appointment. Physicians are the foundation of our Nation's health care system. Continual cuts, or even the threat of repeated cuts, put Medicare patient access to physicians' services at risk. They also threaten to destabilize the Medicare program and create a ripple effect across other programs. Indeed, Medicare cuts jeopardize access to medical care for millions of our active duty military family members and military retirees because their TRICARE insurance ties its payment rates to Medicare. Now we are told by the Medicare board of Trustees that if Congress does not act by the end of the year, the Medicare physician payment formula will likely produce a 4.3 percent decrease next year with similar reductions to follow in the years to come. The Medicare Board of Trustees also estimates that the cost of providing medical care will increase by an estimated 15 percent over the next six years, while current reimbursement levels are scheduled to drop by an estimated 26 percent over the same time period. After adjusting for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians in 2013 will be less than half of what they were in 1991. That declining reimbursement rate would likely mean a growing percentage of family physicians would decline to see new Medicare patients and, as a result, access to care would suffer. Washington stands to lose $39 million in 2006 and 1.9 billion from 2006-2014 if these cuts go through. For physicians in Washington, the cuts over this period will average $13,000 per year for each physician in the State. The American Medical Association conducted a survey of physicians in February and March 2005 concerning significant Medicare pay cuts from 2006 through 2013 (as forecast in the 2004 Medicare Trustees report). Results from the survey indicate that if the projected cuts in Medicare physician payment rates begin in 2006: more than a third of physicians (38 percent) plan to decrease the number of new Medicare patients they accept; more than half of physicians (54 percent) plan to defer the purchase of information technology, which is necessary to make value- based purchasing work; a majority of physicians (53 percent) will be less likely to participate in a Medicare Advantage plan; about a quarter of physicians plan to close satellite offices (24 percent) and/ or discontinue rural outreach services (29 percent) if payments are cut in 2006. If the pay cuts continue through 2013, close to half of physicians plan to close satellite offices (42 percent) and/or discontinue rural outreach (44 percent); and one-third of physicians (34 percent) plan to discontinue nursing home visits if payments are cut in 2006. By the time the cuts end, half (50 percent) of physicians will have discontinued nursing home visits. Physicians can simply not absorb cuts these cuts and still deliver high quality care. We must ensure our doctors have the resources they need to ensure that our seniors have access to their physicians. There have been efforts made to address the physician payment issue however; they have not addressed the impact on Medicare beneficiaries and their premiums. I'm concerned some of the proposals would result in an additional burden being placed on the Medicare beneficiary by way of a $24 billion increase in part B premiums in 2006 and a $60 billion increase in 2007. This happens because by law, the monthly Part B premium is set at 25 percent of the part B Trust Fund costs. Administrative or legal changes to increase physician payment rates that don't include a hold-harmless clause, increase Medicare part B expenditures and ultimately, the Part B premiums paid by beneficiaries. This is not a viable solution either as the beneficiaries are already being hit with premium increases and additional cost sharing due to implementation of the prescription drug benefit. For this reason, along with my colleagues, I have chosen to introduce legislation that provides the update for physician reimbursement rates but also holds the part B premiums harmless. I look forward to working my colleagues to pass this legislation to ensure that access to care for our seniors is preserved and enhanced. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the conference report on H.R. 6, the Comprehensive Energy Policy Act of 2005. I stand before my colleagues today with very mixed feelings about this legislation. This conference report has many meaningful achievements and measures that can help provide this Nation, our researchers, and innovators, with the basic tools to start moving America forward toward a new energy strategy for the 21st century. Yet it is far from perfect. It sidesteps many of the most fundamental energy security challenges we face--challenges like our dependence on foreign oil and global climate change, which grow more intractable the longer we wait to address them. It contains provisions that I simply do not support. It is certainly not the Energy bill that this Senator would write if I alone held the drafting pen--the kind of legislation that would put this Nation on a far more ambitious path toward greater energy security in the global economy. I know many of my colleagues feel exactly the same way. And yet I believe all Senators must clearly acknowledge that this legislation is in many ways superior to the Energy bill conference report we considered during the 108th Congress. And that is true in some very meaningful ways for my region, the Pacific Northwest. When the Senate, last month, approved its version of this legislation, I noted that I appreciated the skill and thoughtfulness with which the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee, Senators Domenici and Bingaman, had navigated a path forward for this bill. I suggested at the time that they would need every bit of that skill in coming to resolution with the House of Representatives, on a piece of legislation worthy of this Senate's support. Frankly, I doubted very much that it could be done. But I stand here today ready to vote for this conference report--with reservations, of course--but in recognition of the fact that this legislation is probably better than many of us had reason to expect; and as good as the current political will of Congress would allow. For that, I give enormous credit to the chairman and ranking member. As a member of the Senate Energy Committee, I want to say that I have appreciated the bipartisan nature in which they have handled this bill from the outset. At every turn, they have treated this Senator--and her constituents' interests--with complete fairness. The process by which this legislation was assembled should serve as a model for this body. I want to talk briefly about what I view as some of the most important achievements of this legislation--particularly for my region and the great State of Washington. These are some of the basic tools that can help serve as building blocks to a more ambitious energy strategy for America. First and foremost, it is important to understand that the Pacific Northwest is a region completely unique when it comes to our energy system. More than 70 percent of the electricity production in Washington State is derived from hydroelectric sources--designed around our great river, the mighty Columbia. This was a system built as part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's efforts to electrify the West. As a result, we are a region with a rich and diverse energy history, an uncommon collection of public and private institutions, a large Federal presence that starts with the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and a diverse array of stakeholders rightly concerned about the river's multiple uses. I know all of my colleagues from the Northwest who sit on the Energy Committee--there are five of us, in fact--appreciate this tremendous heritage, our region's history of cost-based power, and the valuable asset that we inherited from our predecessors, great leaders like Senators Jackson, Hatfield, and Magnuson. That is why we worked hard, in a bipartisan manner at every turn, to safeguard the Northwest's system of cost-based power--the engine of our regional economy. That is why the electricity title of this legislation is so important to my region, and to the ratepayers of Washington State. I am proud this legislation specifically protects the Northwest's transmission system, by prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, from converting the Bonneville Power Administration's existing system of cost-based, firm transmission contracts to a market- based auction of financial transmission rights. Now, this auction of financial transmission rights was a central tenet of FERC's controversial and ill-fated standard market design, SMD, proposal. All of us from the Northwest were united in our opposition to SMD because we recognized right away that it was a scheme with the potential to result in tremendous amounts of cost- shifting onto our ratepayers, and to substantially undermine our cost- based system. The provision that protects the Northwest's existing system is thus an important achievement because it slams the door on any sort of future FERC-imposed proposal like standard market design. I would also note that the Senate-passed Energy bill would have slammed the door on SMD once and for all. This became unnecessary, however, when FERC's new chairman officially terminated the commission's SMD proceeding earlier this month. I think that was a very wise choice and think it speaks quite well of the commission's new leadership. Also important to my region are provisions that this bill does not contain. Specifically, this conference report omits the administration's legislative proposals--unveiled earlier this year--to hamstring BPA's ability to invest in regional infrastructure and upend Bonneville's system of cost-based power sales. The Northwest Power and Conservation Council has estimated the administration's proposal would raise regional power rates by $1.7 billion. That would translate to a $480-a-year rate hike for families in some of Washington's most rural communities. Again thanks to the bipartisan efforts of Northwest Senators, those legislative proposals were dead on arrival. When it comes to protecting Washington State consumers, I must also mention a number of other provisions. At long last, the bill establishes mandatory, enforceable reliability rules for operation of the Nation's transmission grid. This effort also began in the Pacific Northwest--after an August 1996 blackout resulting from two overloaded transmission lines near Portland, OR which caused a sweeping outage that knocked out power for up to 16 hours in 10 States, including Washington. As a result, both a DOE task force and the industry itself in 1997 recommended mandatory reliability rules for operating the transmission grid. The Senate first passed this legislation just over 5 years ago, in an effort begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton. It is legislation that I have championed since I have arrived in the Senate, an effort that gained more urgency with the Northeast blackouts of two summers ago; and I will be very pleased to see this measure through to the end. This bill also takes steps to respond to the disastrous western energy crisis, which extracted billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of jobs from our regional economy. As I have recounted many times on this floor, the illegal and unethical practices of Enron and others sent Washington power rates through the roof. This Energy bill puts in place the first ever broad prohibition on manipulation of electricity and natural gas markets. These provisions are modeled on a measure that I have authored that has now passed the Senate twice, and I am pleased that they are included in this conference report-- particularly given the far inferior provisions contained in the House legislation, which would have in many ways gone in the entirely opposite direction. In light of the now-infamous audiotapes of Enron traders and others conspiring to gouge consumers, the legislation also gives Federal regulators new authority to ban unscrupulous energy traders and executives from employment in the utility industry. In addition, it substantially increases fines for energy companies that break the rules. And importantly for my constituents, this legislation prohibits a Federal bankruptcy court from enforcing fraudulent Enron power contracts, including $122 million the now-bankrupt energy giant is attempting to collect from Snohomish PUD. That would translate to more than $400 from the pockets of every family in Snohomish County, WA, who have already seen their utility bills rise precipitously as a result of the western energy debacle. For all these provisions, I am tremendously grateful to the chairman and ranking member. I know they faced a steep uphill battle with the House in retaining these measures, and I applaud and thank them for their efforts in ensuring that the Senate positions prevailed. I should also mention the renewable fuels provisions of this bill, which I believe will help put Washington State farmers and entrepreneurs in the biofuels business. Today, production of biofuels is dominated by the midwestern region of the country, as traditional policies have supported corn- and soy-based fuel production and helped that technology gain maturity. However, the key to lowering costs and establishing a truly national strategy is to make an investment in new technologies that will diversify biofuels production in the United States. Researchers at Washington State University estimate that our State has the capacity to produce 200 million gallons of ethanol from wheat straw, and up to 1.2 billion gallons with technology improvements. Meanwhile, biodiesel is another emerging opportunity for Washington State farmers, using canola or yellow mustard. These crops are particularly well-suited to Washington State, providing high yields without irrigation. Around Spokane, it is estimated that 500,000 acres a year could be put into oil seed production, enough oil to produce 25 million gallons of biodiesel. Statewide, at least 2 million acres could be put into oilseed production for biodiesel. There are a number of very important provisions in this bill that will help my State capitalize on the promise of biofuels, including an Advanced Biofuel Technology Program I authored, to help demonstrate these new technologies; important market-based incentives for refiners to diversify the types of biofuels they use; and financial support in many forms for cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel production. These are very important achievements that will help transform biofuels from a boutique regional industry to something that can become part of a truly national strategy to help supplant our Nation's petroleum imports--lowering costs and helping provide greater economic security to our farmers at the same time. But in addition to renewable fuels, we should acknowledge the provisions of this legislation promoting renewable electricity generation. Obviously, this legislation does not go as far as I would like. I vigorously support a renewable portfolio standard--even a more aggressive standard than what passed the Senate. It is unfortunate, indeed, that the House would not accept this provision, and those of us who strongly advocate it will continue to attempt to move the RPS forward. But this legislation does extend through the end of 2007 the existing production tax credit for renewable energy, such as wind resources. It is estimated that this credit can help save Washington State ratepayers $260 million over the next 10 years. As Northwest utilities add wind resources to help bolster regional power supplies, these investments are also helping fill the coffers of local communities. For example, a new wind project near Ellensburg, WA, has generated an additional $2 million in revenue for Kittitas County. Similarly, wind energy is helping provide another source of income for Northwest farmers. Growers in Columbia County, WA, home to the new 150 Megawatt Hopkins Ridge wind project, receive about $5,000 per turbine located on their land. One farmer estimates the revenue generated by the project will equal the income generated by 250 acres of harvest. For the first time, the Energy bill creates clean renewable energy bonds, to support investment in renewable energy resources by governmental entities, including tribes, agencies such as BPA and other public power entities. I am also pleased that for 20 years the Renewable Energy Production Incentive, REPI, Program, which provides a direct payment to public power entities, which do not qualify for tax credits, for renewable electricity production. Eligible resources are expanded to include ocean energy. The REPI Program has already been used by multiple Washington State public utilities to make renewable energy investments. Washington State is also home to the Pacific Northwest National Lab, and for that reason, the research and development title of this legislation bears mentioning. The Energy bill conference report authorizes hundreds of millions of dollars of investment in research ongoing at the Pacific Northwest National Lab and Washington State universities, including systems biology research, distributed and smart energy technology research and development; bio- and nanotechnology related to the production of bioproducts; and advanced scientific computing. The Energy bill's ``personnel and training'' title is also worth noting, since it will help provide a skilled energy workforce for the 21st century, as the energy industry braces for a critical shortage. Washington State is poised to help train the next generation of engineers and innovators in this area. The legislation requires the Secretaries of Energy and Labor to monitor workforce trends in the area of electric power and transmission engineers and identify critical national shortages of personnel. It also authorizes the Secretaries to establish a grants program of up to $20 million a year to enhance training--including distance-learning, such as the program now being pioneered at Gonzaga University--in electric power and transmission engineering fields. While fewer than 15 universities nationwide offer world-class, Ph.D.-level programs in power engineering, both Washington State University and the University of Washington offer strong programs in this area. In addition, Gonzaga University this year established a specialized masters of science degree and certification program in transmission and distribution engineering. This conference report also streamlines technology transfer rules for national labs such as PNNL, and extends the 20 percent R&D tax credit to energy research done by nonprofit consortiums involving small businesses, National Labs, and universities to promote interaction and collaboration between public and private researchers. The research and development and workforce provisions of this bill hold some of the most promise in putting in place the building blocks for a real, innovative energy strategy for the 21st century. Years in the making, the Energy bill also includes bipartisan reform of the hydroelectric relicensing process. The hydro provisions included in this legislation are designed to improve the accountability and quality of Federal agencies' decisions. At the same time, the compromise restores the rights of the public to participate in the process on equal footing with license applicants--provisions that have been missing in previous versions of the bill. Over the next 15 years, 70 percent of Washington State's non-Federal hydro must go through the hydro relicensing process. Another provision of importance to my State is this legislation's reinstatement of the oil spill liability trust fund, OSLTF. Earlier this year, a Coast Guard report found that the OSLTF--which has been used to clean up spills in the Puget Sound--would run out of money by 2009. The OSLTF was established in the 1990 Oil Pollution Control Act, and has been funded through a per-barrel fee on oil companies until it reached its statutory cap of $1 billion. The fund was designed to be maintained from interest on that original $1 billion, but increasing cleanup costs and low liability caps have eroded the principal amount. The Energy bill would reinstate the fee in April 2006 or thereafter, once the Secretary finds that the balance in the account falls below $2 billion. The bill authorizes application of the fee through 2014. Lastly, I want to mention this legislation's provisions to provide energy assistance to some of our Nation's neediest families. The Energy bill would boost authorization for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, from its traditional level of $2 billion to $5.1 billion, for 2005-2007. LIHEAP funding is critical for some of Washington State's most vulnerable citizens. As a result of the western energy crisis, electricity rates have gone up more than 20 percent statewide while 72 percent of low-income families in Washington use electricity to heat their homes. And already, the 105,000 Washingtonians with incomes below 50 percent of the Federal poverty level spend 34 percent of their entire annual pay on home energy bills. In recent years, less than 30 percent of Washington's eligible families have been able to receive energy assistance--as demand has for LIHEAP dollars has far outpaced their availability. More than doubling available LIHEAP funding would provide a much-needed boost to local organizations in Washington struggling to meet the needs of their communities. As my colleagues can see, this legislation is tremendously complex. I have listed many of the provisions important to my constituents. Of course, there are a number of other measures with which I simply disagree. Perhaps that is to be expected of a 1,700-page piece of legislation that touches every sector of the American economy. For example, the inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources is wrong-headed, and I oppose it. I would note, however, that in order for the inventory to move forward, it must be funded. I know this Senator believes any such inventory would constitute a tremendous waste of taxpayer funds, and the fight is far from over on this issue. Similarly, I oppose the liquefied natural gas provisions of this bill because I believe States and local communities need a bigger role in these decisions. Some of the nuclear provisions of this bill are particularly offensive, in that they create an inherent conflict of interest at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which should not be subject to the cross pressures of protecting public safety and the public interest, at the same time the commission is under fiscal pressure to unwisely accelerate its proceedings under the guise of some new form of ``risk insurance.'' I oppose the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act rollbacks in this bill. The National Energy Policy Act provisions are similarly unnecessary. But I recognize that they are far less sweeping than those originally proposed by the House. If this Senator had her way, we would not be repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Yet I am at least comforted by the fact this legislation hews closely to the compromise on utility mergers reached by the Senate. Moreover, the tax package does not resemble the tax package I would have written. On this point, I agree with the President: The oil and gas industry does not need these incentives, given where prices are at today. I am not the first Senator to say it, and I won't be the last. This bill is not as I would have written it. It has the flaws that I have listed. It is also incomplete. It is a status quo bill when it comes to one of the most difficult challenges to our economic and national security faced by this generation: America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil. This bill does not address this festering problem. It will not provide relief to consumers at the gas pump. Any suggestion to the contrary would be simply false. It is clear to this Senator that if this body is truly serious about putting in place a framework that will allow the United States to compete in the global marketplace; a framework that will allow America to control its own destiny in the coming decades as it relates to our energy security, our work is not done. Tomorrow isn't soon enough to go back to the drawing board and get serious about our dependence on foreign oil. And this Senator will keep fighting to do just that. Our work on energy security has hardly begun--it is far from finished if we want to live up to our responsibilities to future generations of Americans. We must not leave to them a Nation crippled by its addiction to foreign sources of oil--an over-dependence that jeopardizes our economic future and national security. On the contrary, it is our responsibility to face up to a simple fact: The accidents of geology make it impossible for this Nation to drill its way to energy independence, since we are situated on just 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves. We must recognize that fact and read the economic indicators. We must consider emerging competitors such as China and India, and recognize the seismic shifts that are likely to occur in the dynamics of world energy markets. I firmly believe that future generations of Americans will measure us on how we choose to address the challenges of energy security and climate change. They are that vital to this Nation's security and our economic future. But this Senator also recognizes that the leadership of this Congress is not yet prepared to take that step; that my colleagues and I who believe so fundamentally in the importance of enhancing our oil security have more work to do to change the hearts and minds of our colleagues. The American people must also demand better leadership from their elected officials when it comes to energy security. And this Senator stands ready to work across the aisle to do what is necessary to make meaningful progress on these issues. This bill is not perfect. We have much more work to do to bolster our energy security, and this Senator is ready to roll up her sleeves and do it. But on the whole, this bill provides some basic building blocks toward a better energy future. For that reason, I will support the Energy bill conference report and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their hard work on this important legislation. We are here to talk about passing an Energy bill that is not a complete answer to all our energy needs. This is not the end of discussion about energy independence and getting off our overdependence on foreign oil, but it is an important first step. My colleagues need to understand that the provisions in this bill are nuts-and-bolts important for our energy economy, moving forward. As a Senator who supports this legislation, there are certain technologies, certain investments in this legislation that I hope will win the day and will help us build a different kind of energy economy, based on newer technologies and energy supplies than the ones we have today. But this bill represents a compromise that was forged in the Senate and was fought hard for by my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, when they went to conference. I am proud that it has an extension of renewable production tax credits so that our utilities can continue to invest in even more renewable energy; that for the first time it has a renewable clean energy bond section, so that local governments and public power can make greater investments in renewable energy; that it has an extension of the renewable energy production incentive program for public power; that there are efficiency provisions in the bill for appliances and other types of standards that will save 3.5 quads of energy. That is the same as building 85 powerplants. It has a hybrid vehicle incentive provision. It has a biodiesel incentive program. It reinstates the oil spill liability trust fund, which was going broke and which helps us clean up oil pollution, and taxes those who are the polluters. It has research on the smart grid technology that is going to get us more efficiency in our transmission system, and it has incremental steps to push the States toward better standards on net metering. For the Northwest, the electricity title in this legislation is clearly a victory, and I would say the efficiency title in this bill is also a victory. We are moving closer to the key tools we need to upgrade our transmission system. We will have many more debates about what this body can do, though, to continue to diversify off of foreign oil. But we should take the step today to secure that transmission system and get reliability standards in place, something this body has debated now for more than 5 years. After a Western blackout, after a New York blackout, after people in Ohio and Michigan have been affected, the least we can do is push this legislation to improve the security and reliability of our electricity grid. I ask my colleagues to support this legislation as a first step, a short stroke of success, and get about going back to the broader decisions we need to make truly start moving in the direction toward energy independence.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, though we have much to do to make opening markets fairer to all those affected, CAFTA is good for Washingtonians, especially our farmers, it is good for America, and in the long run it will be good for the people living in CAFTA countries too. I will vote for CAFTA and continue to work to maximize what Washingtonians get out of globalization, while also working to minimize the negative side effects that sometimes result from it. Aggressively balancing the impact of opening markets is the track we must all accept. America's economic future hangs in the balance.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, I proudly announce my support for S. 1307, a bill implementing the Dominican Republic-Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA. There is much in CAFTA that helps Washington State. I generally support trade agreements such as CAFTA because I believe that free trade is the best way to raise the standard of living for all Americans and for all people in other countries with which we trade. I believe that once other nations have access to our goods, culture and ideas, we will find that the world will adopt the best attributes of America, including our values. The alternative to supporting CAFTA is unworkable. If CAFTA fails, the Nation's efforts to negotiate future trade agreements will be badly damaged. Congress has to pass CAFTA because it offer benefits to all CAFTA signatories, and because in light of the broader trade context our negotiators would suffer a setback if CAFTA does not pass. Washington State has historically benefited from liberalizing trade laws. For example, in the first year following the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement, Washington State exports to Chile more than doubled. And since NAFTA passed in 1993 Washington exports to Canada and Mexico have increased by 130 percent. CAFTA promises to confer some of the same benefits on Washingtonians. CAFTA makes all U.S. exports to the CAFTA countries duty free in 10 years, and most of these tariffs are eliminated immediately. U.S. exports to these countries are often subject to tariffs, and CAFTA brings us closer to trade parity. In particular, Washington State's pear, cherry, apple and potato growers will see most tariffs on their crops immediately reduced to zero as soon as CAFTA is implemented. These farmers have low enough profit margins without having to contend with high tariffs on their goods, and tariffs place our farmers at a competitive disadvantage with farmers in other countries that are not subject to high tariffs. Our farmers need and deserve better conditions for selling their goods to the seven CAFTA countries. In total, Washington State exported $113 million worth of goods to CAFTA countries in 2004, including oil and coal exports, crops, computers and electronics, processed foods, machinery manufactures and paper, and Washington's trade relationship with CAFTA countries increased by 251 percent from 2000 to 2004. These goods are heavily tariffed under current international trade laws with the CAFTA countries. But under CAFTA, Washington's apple and pear growers will see duties that are currently up to 25 percent on their goods reduced to zero, and our grape growers will see 20 percent tariffs zeroed out. Tariffs on Washington's raspberry growers will be phased out over 5 to 15 years, depending on the CAFTA country, and our dairy farmers, some of whose products are subject to 60 percent tariffs, will see those tariffs phased out over 20 years. The Washington beef industry will see 30 percent tariffs immediately eliminated on some of their products, and other beef product tariffs will be phased out over 10 years. Wheat and barley duties are zeroed out immediately, and potato growers will see some tariffs immediately eliminated and most others phased out over 15 years. Washington State is likely to see its exports to CAFTA countries dramatically increase over time, once CAFTA is enacted. For example, Northwest Washington is likely to see its agricultural exports to CAFTA countries increase as CAFTA is gradually implemented up until 2024, from $2.1 million to $3.8 million, and Central Washington is likely to see agricultural products shoot up from $14.5 million to $22.4 million during the same 20-year stretch. These heavy increases mean more jobs for Washingtonians, at a time when the State is just now turning things around economically. Nationally, CAFTA is also important. CAFTA countries make up the tenth largest export partner for American goods, making that region a larger trading partner for the U.S. than Australia, Brazil or India. While I support CAFTA, I acknowledge that it could do more to protect labor rights in the CAFTA countries, it could be better on the environment and it could better take account of human rights in those nations. Therefore, CAFTA should not be seen in a vacuum. CAFTA is merely one part of what must be a larger strategy for addressing our workers' needs in a rapidly evolving world economy, and for addressing the economic and political problems of our neighbors to the South. I firmly believe that in the long run, encouraging export-led growth in developing countries will help raise incomes, tighten labor markets, and improve job standards in those countries. Opening markets will drive political changes too. Open markets and democracy are the two prevailing political ideas of the present, and they will become even more prevalent in the future. America has to remain the leader in exporting these powerful ideas to the entire world, and CAFTA is one more step we can take to accomplish this. I also strongly believe that our trade policy should couple trade liberalization with worker retraining and other creative, proactive and responsive forms of labor assistance. Globalization will happen no matter what. So we need to be prepared for these changes, and help assure that America's working families do not take the brunt of them. That is why I am working with my colleagues to fully implement improvements to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, TAA. TAA provides workers with access to retraining programs, income support, and other benefits when they lose their jobs due to trade. And TAA works--the Government Accountability Office reports that after TAA was last modified, most workers are enrolling in training services sooner, from 107 days in Fiscal Year 2002 to 38 days in Fiscal Year 2003. TAA must be expanded. We should raise the cap on TAA funds, since 35 States in Fiscal Year 2004 did not have sufficient funds to cover funds those States obligated and paid to TAA-eligible workers. After Trade Promotion Authority passed, we doubled the TAA program to help cushion difficult transitions of workers whose jobs are lost because of trade. We should plan ahead and increase TAA again, to coincide with enactment of CAFTA. TAA and similar programs must also work better. We must plan ahead for changes in our economy--these changes are inevitable, and our long- term plan at training our workers to be prepared for these changes will determine whether America competes in the global market. The 21st century marketplace is dynamic, and public policy must also be flexible if we are to best take advantage of these changes. As our economy continues to shift from a predominantly manufacturing base to a heavy service sector economy, government programs such as TAA must continue to reflect these changes. Specifically, I support proposals such as the Trade Adjustment Assistance Equity for Service Workers Act, which would enhance TAA by extending the program to service sector and secondary service workers. Currently only manufacturing workers qualify for these benefits. Including service sector workers merely reflects the realities of our economy--America will lose somewhere between 500,000 and 3 million service sector jobs to other countries in the next 10 years. I want to emphasize that these are not net job losses, but they will result in people being displaced. People with service sector jobs have families in need just as sure as manufacturing workers do. They should share in the TAA program. We can also close loopholes that make it difficult for some older workers to participate in an add-on to TAA that was meant specifically for them. Now that we have identified these loopholes, it is good government to close them. Our older workforce, some of whom are not the ideal candidates for longer training courses, will benefit from closing these loopholes and once this is done they will be placed in new jobs more quickly. Those concerns, especially about the need to make preparing our workforce for the global economy a higher priority, can be addressed by Congress and the administration in the coming months, and I will work to achieve these goals moving forward. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Ambassador Portman be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss regulatory oversight of energy futures markets. Would the distinguished chairman of Agriculture Committee engage me and the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, in a colloquy on this subject?

Ms. CANTWELL. Senators Feinstein, Levin, and I have raised serious concern about off exchange futures transactions in energy commodities under the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In the wake of the Western energy crisis, we believe that there needs to be adequate Federal authority over these energy markets and that they be more transparent in order to prevent fraud and manipulation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the Senate energy bill that this body has passed today, on a resounding bipartisan vote of 85 to 12. For those of us on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, this day has been long in coming. Today is another milestone in the effort to craft a new energy plan for America; legislation that has been swirling around Capitol Hill in one form or another for at least the last 4 years. I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee for the skill and consideration they have shown in navigating a path forward for this legislation. It has taken a lot of work. But today's vote represents a concerted, bipartisan effort to find the compromises that can help move our nation forward on an energy strategy to meet the needs of a 21st century economy. The result has been a cleaner, more transparent process, and a cleaner energy plan for America. I will not stand before this body today and suggest that this legislation is the solution to all of the challenges we are facing--and will continue to face for decades to come--when it comes to our national energy security. There are provisions contained in this lengthy and complicated bill that I do not agree with; and there are areas where this legislation does not go nearly far enough, particularly when it comes to curbing our dangerous overdependence on foreign oil imports, and tackling the emerging threat of global climate change. However, I am supporting this legislation because it represents a modest improvement on the status quo; and because I believe that this legislation is the beginning--rather than the end--of the Senate's consideration of these issues. I have participated in this debate in the Energy Committee and on the Senate floor for the past 4 years, and I have listened intently to many of my colleagues and what they have had to say. I can tell you this: it seems to me that there is more agreement in this body today than at any other point in my memory as to the nature of the energy challenges we are facing as a nation, and the critical importance of addressing these problems if we want to ensure American competitiveness and economic security in the coming decades. Four years ago, I do not believe many of us were discussing the impact of foreign, state-owned oil companies on our energy security. Few of us had recognized the emergence of China and India and what those countries' growing thirst for petroleum could mean to the dynamics of world energy markets and the American economy. Many Senators were skeptical about the potential market transformation that could occur with new hybrid vehicle technologies. Four years ago, there was far less consensus about the promise of new biofuel technologies using an array of different crops and materials. These technologies are capable of transforming the U.S. renewable fuels business from a boutique industry dominated by corn-growers to a real, national industry capable of displacing significant amounts of imported petroleum. This Senate has come along way in four years--in thought, if not yet in deed. The fact the majority of Senators now recognize the need to address in a meaningful and binding way the threat of global climate change; and the fact that the majority of my colleagues now seem to recognize the perfect storm of economic and national security issues posed by our dependence on foreign oil are significant milestones. But I am disappointed that we do not yet have the same degree of unanimity on what to do about it. That is why this legislation--and the debate about this legislation's successes and failings--is just the beginning. Our national energy security is an issue with which this country and its leaders absolutely must continue to grapple. When it comes to our Nation's oil dependence, America can and must make more progress. We must acknowledge the realities of geology and the international marketplace. Given that the U.S. sits on just 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we cannot drill our way to energy independence. And when any policymaker looks at the distribution of where the rest of those oil reserves lie-- two-thirds of them in the Middle East--it becomes painfully obvious that the U.S. must step up and tackle this challenge head-on. Anything less jeopardizes our economic future and our national security. I fundamentally believe that securing our Nation's energy future is among the biggest challenge faced by our generation. It is a challenge by which future generations of Americans will measure us. We did not get the job done with this particular Energy bill when it comes to America's energy security and dependence on foreign oil. Nor did we finish the job when it comes to the issue of global climate change. So this year, next year and for the foreseeable future, this Senator will stand up and ask her colleagues to pay more than lip service to these issues. The spirited and thoughtful debate that has characterized our consideration of this bill must guide us as we move forward to tackle these challenges. I believe it can be done. It must be done. And this Senator stands ready to work with her colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reach meaningful solutions to what are some of the most difficult economic security issues of our time. But as I said at the outset, I do believe that this legislation will move our Nation forward in a number of other important ways. A comprehensive Energy bill touches every sector of our economy. The nature of our existing energy infrastructure is complex and interdependent, yet regionally diverse. Moreover, a maze of interlocking Federal and State regulatory authorities guide the production and sale of energy supplies in this country. For all of these reasons, the task of crafting a ``comprehensive'' energy policy is a massive undertaking. But even as this legislation has failed to address certain issues to this Senator's satisfaction, we have taken a number of important steps forward. While we have not done nearly enough to address our economy's petroleum dependence--and hence, our dependence on foreign petroleum-- this bill does put in place the basics for creation of a robust, American biofuels industry that can someday displace significant portions of our energy imports. While agricultural producers across the U.S. have long touted the energy and economic security benefits of fostering a domestic biofuels production industry, this country has nevertheless lagged behind in developing the technologies that would make a national biofuels strategy a reality. For example, 90 percent of the ethanol production in the U.S. is derived from corn and is produced in just five Midwestern States. Meanwhile, other nations such as Brazil have taken the lead on producing biofuels from other crops, and in the process have diversified their economies and energy supplies, begun to minimize their dependence on foreign petroleum, and lowered prices for consumers. The key to growing this industry for the U.S. is investing in the demonstration and commercialization of new technologies that will make it possible to produce biofuels from a more diverse array of crops, including wheat straw and other biomass readily available in places like Washington State. The Senate Energy bill contains a number of provisions key to moving forward on a national biofuels strategy. Specifically, I was pleased to add a number of measures that will help spur biofuels production in the Pacific Northwest. Making ethanol and biodiesel from more diverse feedstocks--in more regions of the country--is essential to making biofuels a sustainable and cost-effective solution to our Nation's emerging energy needs. The Senate Energy bill contains a provision I authored to establish an ``Advanced Biofuel Technologies Program.'' The new program provides $550 million over 5 years to demonstrate technologies for production of ethanol and biodiesel. The measure directs the Secretary of Energy to work toward developing and demonstrating no fewer than four different conversion technologies for producing cellulosic-based ethanol; and five technologies for coproducing biodiesel and value-added bioproducts. In other words, it would provide Federal support for universities, private sector researchers and entrepreneurs who are striving to invent the next generation of biofuels technology, and help demonstrate them in real-world applications. The program also directs the Secretary to prioritize the demonstration of proj- ects that will enhance the geographical diversity of alternative fuels production, and focus on developing technology related to feedstocks that represent 10 percent or less of our Nation's existing ethanol and biodiesel production--agricultural products like wheat straw, canola and mustard that are readily available in Washington State and throughout the Pacific Northwest. But in addition to pioneering the next generation of technologies, the Senate Energy bill would provide important market-based incentives for the very first producers of new sources of biofuel. The Senate bill is more ambitious that previous energy bills, as well as this year's House-passed version, in setting a target to produce 8 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012. But in addition, it contains my provision to more than double the incentives for refiners to use ethanol made from cellulosic sources such as wheat straw, and to ensure that by 2013 the U.S. is producing at least 250,000 gallons of ethanol from these new sources. These provisions are designed to help build a market for the very first producers of ethanol from nontraditional, noncorn sources-- an important way to help move the technology toward broader commercialization. The Senate Energy bill also recognizes that a national biofuels strategy is in the long-term energy security interests of the U.S., and provides Federal support for this emerging industry. First, the legislation authorizes Federal loan guarantees for the first cellulosic ethanol facilities that produce 15 million gallons of ethanol or more. Multiple sites in the Pacific Northwest are vying to be among the first in the U.S. to produce cellulosic ethanol. In addition, the bill would extend the biodiesel excise tax credit through 2010. Otherwise slated to expire in 2006, the tax credit is important to the very first refiners and distributors of biodiesel in Washington State, who are using this tax credit to lower costs to consumers at the pump. I believe all of these are valuable provisions that will contribute to our national energy security and put farmers across the country in the biofuels business. In addition to the renewable fuels standard, this legislation will diversify our Nation's energy supplies with the inclusion of a renewable portfolio standard that would require 10 percent of our electricity to come from sources such as wind, solar and geothermal. This legislation also extends the renewable production tax credit and the renewable energy production incentive program to support the drive to diversify our sources of electricity. I should also note that this legislation contains consensus reliability standards, to ensure mandatory rules are in place to govern operation of our electricity grid--an important provision that I have championed since I arrived in the Senate, and an effort that was initially begun by my predecessor, Senator Slade Gorton. I was also pleased to have a role in crafting provisions to promote cutting-edge research and development in the area of ``smart grid'' technologies, which will build intelligence into our existing energy infrastructure in a way that improves both efficiency and reliability. This legislation also includes incentives for the adoption of existing technologies that can aid reliability such as ``smart meters,'' which give utilities and their customers real-time information about energy usage. This legislation also takes an important step to ensure that we are meeting the workforce needs of the electric utility sector. The National Science Foundation and energy industry interests have noted that as the baby boom sector of our workforce retires, a lack of training capacity will lead to a growing shortage of qualified engineers and innovators. Language that I worked to add to the bill in committee will ensure that the Energy and Labor Secretaries are closely monitoring our energy workforce, including the availability of power and transmission engineers, and will authorize the Federal Government to provide grants for appropriate workforce training investments. All of these reliability-related provisions will help ensure the stability of the electricity grid, which powers every sector of the American economy. While I am on the topic of electricity, I must mention some of what I believe are among the most notable achievements of this legislation. There are provisions of this bill that I have championed related to Enron and the market manipulation that occurred during the Western energy crisis, which I believe represent the first meaningful Congressional response to the massive public mugging that took place. Certainly, Congress enacted aggressive new accounting reforms in the wake of Enron's collapse. But we have not yet done the same when it comes to our Federal energy laws. I spoke at the outset about how the Senate has at least turned the corner in recognizing the problems posed by climate change and foreign oil dependence. Similarly, some of my colleagues may recall that, 4 years ago, many at first didn't believe that any market manipulation had taken place in the West. But with the release of Enron's smoking gun memos outlining the manipulation schemes, additional audiotape evidence that has surfaced since then, the guilty pleas of energy traders who executed these schemes four years later, this Senate has reevaluated its position, based on facts that are now a matter of public record. I am optimistic about the notion that this Senate, in the foreseeable future, will get serious about addressing climate change and oil dependence because I have seen a sea change occur in the Senate on an energy issue before--in particular, on the issue of market manipulation and the need to protect our Nation's consumers against later-day Enrons. The Energy bill we passed today contained a number of important provisions to incorporate the lessons we learned from the Western energy crisis. First, it puts in place a broad statutory ban on all forms of market manipulation in our Nation's electricity and natural gas markets. Second, it gives Federal authorities the ability to ban traders and executives implicated in energy market manipulation schemes from participating in the utility industry. The Securities Exchange Commission has had this authority for decades and used it in some high-profile instances of individuals engaged in securities fraud. However, this authority does not currently exist in Federal energy law. Added unanimously as amendments during the Senate Energy Committee's markup of the bill, these provisions were inspired by recent court cases in which it is alleged that some of the same energy traders overheard on the now-infamous Enron audiotapes have been implicated in subsequent market manipulation schemes in other regions of the country. Lastly, this legislation contains a provision of particular importance to my Washington State constituents. Section 1270 of this bill would prohibit a Federal bankruptcy court from forcing Washington State's Snohomish Public Utility District--PUD--and its customers to fork over another $122 million to Enron. Specifically, the provision prohibits the bankruptcy court from enforcing payments on power contracts that are unjust, unreasonable or contrary to the public interest. The provision was written to target manipulated power contracts between Enron and utilities in the West. The contracts were cancelled when the energy giant began its scandalous slide into bankruptcy. But once they were cancelled, Enron turned around and sued utilities for ``termination payments,'' seeking to collect profits on power that was never even delivered. While the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--FERC--has been conducting its proceedings to provide remedies for the consumers harmed by market manipulation, Enron has nevertheless continued pursuing collection of these ``termination payments'' in bankruptcy court. In fact, the court has already ruled that other Enron victims--Nevada Power Company and Sierra Pacific Power Company--should have to pay these fees, which come to more than $330 million for the two Nevada utilities. The court went so far as to enjoin FERC from proceeding with its own specific inquiry into whether Enron is owed the termination payments in those cases. The provision included in this bill says very clearly to FERC, ``Do your job to protect consumers, and when you make a decision, that decision will stand.'' Interpreting our Nation's energy consumer protection laws is not the job of a bankruptcy judge. This responsibility lies with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. I am aware that these provisions are in stark contrast to those included in the legislation passed by the House of Representatives. The House bill would ban only one type of manipulation scheme made infamous by Enron--roundtrip trading. It would do nothing to ban proven market manipulators from future employment in the energy business. And most inexplicably, it would actually give later-day Enrons a license to steal. It would lock in profits for would-be market manipulators under the guise of ``contract sanctity.'' I recognize that reconciling these issues with the House may be difficult. But when it comes to the deeds of Enron--and putting in place tough new laws to make sure such a wide- ranging fraud is never again perpetrated against our Nation's consumers--I believe the Senate will have the American people firmly on our side. In addition to these very important provisions, I must also make a few comments on other matters of importance in this legislation's electricity title. I regret that during the course of the debate on this bill, there was not enough time to discuss more fully its treatment of the Public Utility Holding Company Act--PUHCA. It is important that this silence not be confused with disinterest. It is because of the consumer protections provisions included in the bill-- some that I have mentioned already--that this issue has not caused an uproar, as it has in the past. It was crucial to me that, in PUHCA's stead, this bill include the refinements and enhancements of FERC's merger review authority that were worked out by Senators Bingaman and Domenici. I must still state my profound uneasiness with the notion that we are repealing one of our Nation's fundamental consumer protection laws at a time when many of us are concerned about mergers and consolidation within the utility industry. And I remain concerned that we have not done enough to address the issue of cross-subsidization of unregulated affiliates by utilities that are owned by the same holding company. I ask my colleagues to remember: Enron was a company willing to turn a profit by any means necessary; but it was presented with a market and regulatory environment that presented innumerable opportunities for abuse. We have given FERC the tools in this bill to prevent those abuses; let's hope they take this responsibility seriously. The bill's repeal of PUHCA is predicted by some to usher in a new wave of utility mergers. Consolidation can be beneficial, but it can also foreclose competition, frustrate effective regulation and create inefficiencies. Let us hope that Federal and State regulators both take their responsibilities to protect consumers seriously. PUHCA repeal lifts diversification and investment bans that the leading financial rating agencies have determined were critical in protecting the financial health of utilities and preventing bad business investments. Let us hope that we don't regret this decision. Again, this bill requires steps to prevent cross-subsidization when utilities merge, but is silent on the need to prevent cross- subsidization by those utilities that don't merge. Let us hope that consumers and independent competitors do not suffer from this decision. I sincerely hope history will prove this Senator's instincts and skepticism wrong on the topic of utility cross-subsidization and PUHCA repeal--because otherwise, it is American ratepayers and investors who will be paying the price. But as I said, it is the consumer protections in this bill today that have led me to view this as a reasonable compromise. In addition to the provisions I mentioned before, this legislation also includes improved language on market transparency, accountability standards for the Nation's Regional Transmission Organizations--RTOs--and the protection of transmission rights needed to serve consumers, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. Let me be perfectly clear: the provisions that I have mentioned, taken together, are the minimum needed in order to meet the needs of electric consumers. They were essential in earning the support of this Senator. Last Congress, one of the key factors that led to the defeat of the Energy bill was the failure of the conference report to protect electric consumers. While I believe we can and should do more, I commend both the Senators from New Mexico for their efforts. But their efforts will be wasted if the other body does not realize that these provisions are essential for final passage of an energy bill conference report. It is also important to note that the Senate legislation we have passed today avoids the gratuitous special interest deals in the House bill--such as giving groundwater polluting MTBE manufacturers a free ride on clean up liability. It moves forward without the rollbacks of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act that are included in the House legislation. The Senate has spoken out against these bad environmental policies and we stuck to those principles in this bill. We stuck to those principles and we worked across the aisle, in good faith at every turn. I hope the other body across the Capitol has paid some attention to this process. If leaders in the House are serious about delivering energy legislation to the President's desk for signature, then they will realize that a similar effort will be required during the conference on this legislation. Make no mistake: the Senate Energy bill is far from perfect. There are missed opportunities. There are provisions that I outright oppose, such as surveying for oil and gas areas on the Outer Continental Shelf that are protected by drilling moratoria, originally established by President George H.W. Bush. But there are many, many more provisions in this legislation that I wholeheartedly support. This bill positions the U.S. to make many of the right investments in energy research and development. It includes important measures to diversify both our domestic sources of biofuels and electricity. And it contains many important consumer protections for our Nation's energy ratepayers. In other words, the Senate Energy bill contains many of the basics necessary for our Nation to start moving in the right direction. It is a modest step. Yet I believe we should take this step, if we are committed to moving our country--even more aggressively in the coming years--toward an energy policy that will sustain American competitiveness in a rapidly-evolving global economy. I thank my friends and colleagues who serve on the Senate Energy Committee, for the thoughtful and substantive consideration they gave a number of key aspects of this legislation. And again, my thanks to the chairman and ranking member for their leadership in navigating what were at times turbulent waters, with certain aspects of this bill. We will be counting on those navigational skills as this legislation moves toward conference with the House of Representatives.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wish to clarify for my colleagues the intent of section 1270 of the underlying Energy bill, which is a provision of extreme importance to my Washington State constituents. Ratepayers in my State were harmed by the Western energy crisis and the manipulation and fraudulent practices of Enron in wholesale electricity markets. A number of proceedings remain underway at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which will determine the relief granted to consumers harmed by Enron's unlawful trading practices. An important issue that remains is whether utilities--such as Washington State's Snohomish County Public Utility District--should be forced to make termination payments to Enron, for power Enron never delivered in the midst of its scandalous collapse into bankruptcy. The intent of section 1270 of the underlying bill and the technical correction we have adopted today is simply to affirm that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has exclusive jurisdiction under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to determine whether these termination payments should be required. This provision expresses Congress's belief that the issues surrounding the potential requirement to make termination payments associated with wholesale power contracts are inseparable and inextricably linked to the commission's jurisdictional responsibilities.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak to a particular section of the comprehensive energy bill (S. 10) that we have been discussing for the past 2 weeks. My comments focus specifically on section 1270 of this legislation. Section 1270 was an amendment I offered in the Energy & Natural Resources Committee mark-up of this legislation. It was accepted after considerable debate and discussion, on a bipartisan voice vote. Since then, I have continued to work with my colleagues on the Energy Committee, to further clarify and perfect this language. In fact, I was pleased to work with my colleague from Idaho, Senator Craig, on a technical amendment to this language, amendment No. 895, to refine it even further. This provision, entitled ``Relief for Extraordinary Violations,'' is extremely important to the consumers of Washington State and ratepayers in other parts of the West, who bore tremendous costs as a result of Enron's schemes to manipulate our wholesale electricity markets. The principle at the heart of this provision is simple. The consumers of Washington State must not be forced to become the deep-pockets for Enron's bankruptcy. The same ratepayers who have paid so dearly for the Western energy crisis and Enron's schemes to manipulate markets should not be forced to pay even more--four years later--for power that Enron never even delivered. I must thank my colleagues on the Energy Committee for their thoughtful consideration of this issue, particularly my colleagues from the Pacific Northwest and West as a whole who have seen first-hand the toll the crisis has taken on our economy and our constituents. I must also express my gratitude to the rest of the members of the committee, and to the chairman and ranking member for indulging what was a very thoughtful debate on this issue. At the conclusion of the committee debate, this Senator was extremely satisfied; first, because of the very nature of the debate itself, in which--for almost an entire hour--a bipartisan group of Senators focused their valuable time and attention on a situation that is highly complicated, and likely unprecedented in the history and application of our Nation's energy laws. And second, because, at the end of the day, the committee struck a blow for justice and for Western consumers. It was an important statement. This is not the kind of country where we should reward Enron for its criminal conspiracy to commit fraud; a fraud of historic proportions perpetrated against the consumers of the West. As my colleagues appreciate by now, my State was particularly ravaged by the western energy crisis of 2000-2001. One of my State's public utility districts, Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County, had a long-term contract with Enron, to purchase power. The contract was terminated once Enron began its scandalous collapse into bankruptcy. Nonetheless, Enron has asserted before the bankruptcy court the right to collect all of the profits it would have made under the contract through so-called ``termination payments.'' Enron has made this claim even though Enron never delivered the power under the contract, even though Enron had obtained its authority to sell power fraudulently, and even though Enron was in gross violation of its legal authority to sell power at the very time the contract was entered into. This has been demonstrated by the criminal guilty pleas of the senior managers of Enron's Western power trading operation, in which it has been admitted that Enron was engaged in a massive criminal conspiracy to rig electric markets and rip off electric ratepayers. But it has been further illustrated by the now-infamous Enron tapes, in which Enron employees discuss many unsavory topics, including specifically how they were ``weaving lies together'' in their negotiations related to the contract with Snohomish. I will tell my colleagues that there is no way under the sun that I believe my constituents owe Enron another penny. Not one single penny more. What this amendment does is ensure that, when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FERC comes to a conclusion later this year about how to cleanup the Enron mess, that the bankruptcy court cannot overturn FERC's decision about whether these ``termination payments'' are just, reasonable or in the public interest. It says to FERC, ``do your job to protect consumers, and when you make a decision, that decision will stand.'' Interpreting our nation's energy consumer protection laws is not the job of a bankruptcy judge. Now, this Senator has a very strong opinion on this matter in general. I believe there is no way no stretch of the imagination, or interpretation of law in which these termination payments could be deemed just, reasonable or in the public interest, knowing everything we know today about what Enron did to the consumers of my state. In fact, during committee debate on the underlying provision in this bill, some of my colleagues suggested that we should just out-right abrogate these contracts; simply declare them null and void on their face. But what we recognized, relying on the legal expertise of the committee staff, is that an act like that--as tempting as it may seem--would pose certain constitutional issues. We recognized that this provision section 1270--is the best way for Congress to express its will in this matter. I have, as my colleagues know, had substantial differences with FERC over the course of the past few years. But I am glad to say today, after 4 long years, it appears that the commission may be on the right track on this issue. This March, FERC issued a ruling in which the commission definitely found that the termination payments at issue here ``are based on profits Enron projected to receive under its long-term wholesale power contracts executed during the period when Enron was in violation of conditions of its market-based rate authority.'' For the first time, FERC found that Enron was in violation of its market-based rate authority at the time victimized utilities such as Washington's Snohomish PUD inked power sales contract with the now-bankrupt energy giant. That FERC process is on-track to wrap-up this year; but so long as that process is ongoing, utilities like Snohomish have been operating under the threat that the bankruptcy court would swoop in and demand payments for Enron, regardless of the pattern of market manipulation and fraud. In a series of rulings, the bankruptcy court has expressed its will to do just that. What this provision does is ensure the bankruptcy court cannot force these utilities and their consumers to make termination payments that are unjust, unreasonable or contrary to the public interest. Section 1270 states that notwithstanding any other provision of law, and specifically the bankruptcy code, FERC ``shall have exclusive jurisdiction'' to make these determinations. Many of my colleagues might naturally assume that this provision merely sets forth what is already the case. But as I stated earlier, that is not necessarily the case. This provision is necessary and critical because the Federal bankruptcy court has already concluded that it will not defer to FERC with respect to whether our constituents will be required to make termination payments. Not only has the bankruptcy court not deferred to FERC, it compounded the seriousness of the issue by enjoining FERC from proceeding with its own specific inquiry into whether Enron is owed the termination payments. It forced FERC to stop on a matter that FERC had said required its special expertise. Imagine making it through the arduous and frustrating, years-long process of proving the case against Enron and proving it to FERC, only to find out at the end of the day that the bankruptcy court would intervene and force these termination payments anyway. It is this situation--a collision between FERC and the bankruputcy court that this legislation addresses. And what the Congress is saying with this amendment, as counsel for the Energy Committee stated during our extended discussion, is that ``the Commission, not the bankruptcy [court], is the proper forum in which these question be resolved.'' That is certainly my view, and the view of many of us who represent ratepayers harmed by Enron. I do not assume this position in denigration of the responsibility of the bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy court has an important role to play in our law and our economic community. However, I do think it is fair to say that it is a forum in which it naturally looks first to maximizing the assets of the estate. In contrast, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's first obligation is to protect our nation's ratepayers. In this very unique context, in which a seller of electricity that has fraudulently and criminally manipulated the market in violation of the tariffs on file with the commission--and where the seller is now seeking to reap the profits from that activity in the form of termination payments for power never delivered--what we are saying here, unequivocally, is that FERC is the forum in which this should be resolved. FERC is the entity that is supposed to look after our nation's ratepayers, and should have make the decision about whether termination payments are permissible under the Federal Power Act.. Given the nuanced, legal nature of this provision, I can assure my colleagues that this ``rifle shot,'' as the ranking minority member of the committee called it, is narrowly drawn in order to minimize any unanticipated impacts. It is only applicable to contracts entered into during the electricity crisis with sellers of electricity that manipulated the market to such an extent that they brought about unjust and unreasonable rates. There is only one such seller, and that is Enron, and there are only a handful of terminated contracts with Enron that haven't been resolved as of this date. As a result, the amendment does not tamper with or otherwise disturb long-standing legal precedents. It does not tamper with the Mobile- Sierra doctrine, nor does it disturb other recent federal court decisions regarding the relationship of the bankruptcy courts and FERC in the context of the rejection in bankruptcy of FERC approved power sales contracts. It is, as the ranking minority member of the committee observed, a ``clean shot'' that ``affirms that FERC is the entity with the authority to review whether termination payments associated with cancelled Enron power contracts are lawful under the Federal Power Act.'' The ultimate disposition of this issue is of paramount concern to my constituents. It will decide whether they will be on the hook for more than $120 million, an amount that means more than $400 in the pocket of each ratepayer in Snohomish County, WA. It is critical that this issue be decided by the forum with the specialized expertise in matters relating to the sale of electricity with a stated mission of protecting ratepayers, and that is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Let me conclude by saying that I am very pleased that this provision has broad bipartisan support as well as the support of the Edison Electric Institute, the National Rural Electric Co-operative Association and the American Public Power Association. I believe my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, said it exactly right when this amendment was debated in committee, and I am extremely grateful for his support. He essentially said that no Senator Republican or Democrat should feel any limitation in ``lending their shoulder to this wheel,'' to get this situation fixed. Senator Smith, Senator Allen, and Senator Craig all played important roles during the mark-up in allowing this measure to move forward. And I would be remiss if I did not mention the invaluable assistance from the Senators from Nevada on this issue the minority leader, Senator Reid, but also Senator Ensign. While Senator Ensign does not serve on the Energy Committee, he played a crucial role in ensuring that colleagues on both sides of the aisle understood the importance and reasonableness of this measure, and the importance of this provision to him and to the people of Nevada. I thank my colleagues, look forward to the passage of this provision out of the Senate and to working together to ensure this critical measure is included in legislation that emerges from the Energy bill conference with the House of Representatives.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Section 261 of the underlying bill contains provisions designed to reform the hydroelectric relicensing process. These provisions are the result of a hard-won compromise, and I thank the chairman and ranking member, along with Senators Craig, Smith and Feinstein for their leadership on this issue. In particular, these provisions significantly differ from previous House- and Senate- passed versions, as they will allow States, tribes and the public to propose alternative licensing conditions, and will further allow these entities to trigger the trial-type hearing process outlined in this section. I believe these public participation provisions are key improvements in this legislation. I would also like to more fully explore the process by which alternative conditions proposed by these stakeholders should be considered. Before an alternative condition or prescription to a license may be approved, the Secretary must concur with the judgment of the license applicant that it will either cost significantly less to implement, or result in improved operation of the hydro project for electricity production--at the same time it provides for adequate protection of the resource--or in the case of fishway prescriptions, will be no less protective than the fishway initially proposed by the Secretary. This provision does not provide the license applicant a so-called veto power over proposed alternatives, because this judgment requires the Secretary's concurrence. In addition, it is the Senate's intent that these judgments be supported by substantial evidence as required by Section 313 of the Federal Power Act. I would like to ask the senior Senator from New Mexico the following question: If the Secretary determines that a license applicant's judgment has been based on inaccurate data and thus fails to meet the test of being supported by substantial evidence, can the Secretary withhold his or her concurrence? Mr. Domenici. The Senator from Washington is correct in expressing our intent that the license applicant's judgment be supported by substantial evidence. It is not our intent to provide an incentive for applicants to provide poor data in order to prompt the rejection of a condition by other stakeholders. If the Secretary of a resource agency determines that the evidence provided by the license applicant is of insufficient quality and therefore does not meet the substantial evidence test, the Secretary should not concur with the license applicant's judgment in the matter.

Ms. CANTWELL. This provision in no way prejudices or predetermines FERC's decisions in those matters. During the Senate Energy Committee's work on this legislation, the supporters of this amendment and I initially considered offering an amendment that would have gone further to require a certain outcome, had the commission made certain findings. We chose not to pursue that amendment in response to concerns that were raised by colleagues. Section 1270 of this legislation is completely neutral regarding how the commission uses its authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act. As such, the provision does not in any way implicate what is known as the Mobile-Sierra doctrine, related to which standard FERC should apply to its review of jurisdictional wholesale power contracts.

Ms. CANTWELL. The clarifications to section 1270 effectuated by the amendment accepted today are consistent with the committee's intent in adopting section 1270. In addition, they are completely consistent with Supreme Court precedent. The committee sought assurances that section 1270 would not disturb underlying legal doctrines such as the Mobile-Sierra doctrine or the separation of powers principles. The amendment provides further clarity that section 1270 is not intended to otherwise disturb or modify the Mobile-Sierra doctrine by adding the phrase ``or contrary to the public interest.'' This phrase, when coupled with the standard recital of FERC's exclusive authority to determine whether a charge is just and reasonable, makes it clear that Congress is making no pronouncements regarding the manner in which FERC exercises its authority, but rather only that it is the appropriate forum to resolve these issues. Congress is giving no guidance to FERC on Mobile-Sierra one way or another through this provision. The committee's overarching intent with respect to section 1270 was to ensure that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and not the bankruptcy court involved in the Enron matter, decides all of the issues surrounding whether termination payments are lawful. The addition of the phrase ``rate schedules and contracts entered thereunder'' ensures that result. In addition, this clarification is completely consistent with Supreme Court decisions permitting Congress to give a Federal agency the authority to resolve matters that are also normally addressed by our judicial branch of government. As the Supreme Court stated in a case entitled Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 478 U.S. 833, 854 (1986), ``looking beyond form to the substance of what Congress has done'', we are persuaded that the congressional authorization of limited CFTC jurisdiction over a narrow class of common law claims as an incident to the CFTC's primary, and unchallenged, adjudicative function does not create a substantial threat to the separation of powers. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agricultural Products Co., 473 U.S. 568, 589 (1985). Similarly, in this instance, the grant of authority to FERC to decide this matter is exceedingly narrow insofar as it relates solely to the legality of Enron collecting additional profits in the form of termination payments for power not delivered. Clearly, it is directly related to the agency's core function to ensure just and reasonable rates and guard against market manipulation. Moreover, these are public rights that are at stake in this dispute--the rights of electric ratepayers across the country to just and reasonable rates, rights that have existed under federal statute since 1935--and not mere private rights that should be resolved by a non-article III bankruptcy tribunal. Accordingly, the clarification provided by the amendment is completely consistent with Supreme Court precedent on the separation of powers principle.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to make comments regarding the McCain-Lieberman amendment addressing global climate change. I will vote in support of this amendment today, because I believe this country must get serious about putting in place a mandatory program to address the very real problem of greenhouse gas emissions. My vote today is based on the fact I believe the United States must make a strong, economy-wide commitment to addressing the threat of climate change. But at the same time, I would also like to note that I retain serious reservations about a number of specific provisions added to this legislation since the Senate last considered it, during the 108th Congress. Specifically, I have strong concerns about the nuclear provisions that were added to the McCain-Lieberman amendment. Nuclear technology may be emissions free, but it is not without substantial environmental costs measured on a completely different scale. This is a fact we in Washington know all too well, since our State is home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation--one of the biggest nuclear remediation projects in the world, including 53 million gallons of high-level nuclear waste stored in underground tanks located far too close to the Columbia River. Hanford's nuclear legacy is the result of production activities undertaken in the service of our national defense, from World War II through the Cold War. While there are obviously different challenges associated with defense and commercial wastes, Hanford nevertheless highlights for me the very significant distance we have yet to travel when it comes to grappling with the environmental costs of nuclear technology. So while I wish my colleagues had not added certain provisions to their climate change proposal, I also understand--from the statements they have made on the floor today--that this amendment remains a work in progress. I believe the most important thing is to make sure we do not obscure what this amendment is really about. It is about the need for this country to step up, and to develop a real national strategy to address the issue of climate change. I have spoken on this floor before about the scientific consensus that has emerged regarding the threat of global warming. I have addressed the issues of potential economic costs associated with climate change, particularly in the Pacific Northwest where nearly every sector of our economy relies in some way on the Columbia River. That river, in turn, is fed by mountain snowpack that many have projected may well be diminishing due to global warming. I have also spoken about this Nation's opportunity to take the lead in the global race for energy independence, to develop the next generation of energy technologies and create the jobs that will go along with them. We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our problems; we don't push them off on our children and future generations. Climate change is too alarming a trend for us to ignore. For that reason, I will vote to support the McCain-Lieberman amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Feinstein. This amendment is an important, commonsense tool that will provide States with the authority they need to protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment. The underlying bill grants exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for the siting of LNG facilities. Unfortunately, this model minimizes the opportunity for important State interests regarding public safety, security, and environmental concerns to be adequately addressed within the LNG siting process. The Feinstein amendment is simple--it allows the Governor of affected States to approve, veto, or condition the siting of onshore liquefied natural gas, LNG, terminals based on safety, security, environmental, and other concerns. In addition to providing Governors a clear role in bringing safety and security challenges to light, it also provides them with the tools to have those concerns adequately addressed. Furthermore, the Feinstein amendment makes sense. Under the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, the Governors of adjacent coastal States already have the ability to veto, approve, or condition the siting of LNG terminals located outside of their jurisdiction in Federal waters. Affected States should have the same authority over LNG facilities on their land or bodies of water that they already have over facilities sited in Federal waters. The Feinstein amendment grants states this important role over LNG facilities proposed within their jurisdiction. The Feinstein amendment is critical to assure that safety and homeland security concerns related to LNG facilities are addressed. Since 1944 there have been 13 serious accidents at onshore LNG facilities. A recent LNG accident in Algeria killed 27 workers, injured 74 others, and was reported to be the worst petrochemical fire in Algeria in more than 40 years. Several reports have cited the potential homeland security challenges posed by LNG terminals, delivery tankers and their role in a potential terrorist attack. The potential impacts of a well-coordinated terrorist attack are immense. A December 2004 report by Sandia National Laboratories, reported that an intentional LNG spill and resulting fire could cause ``major'' injuries to people and ``significant'' damage to structures within approximately .3 miles of the spill site, more moderate injuries and structural damage up to 1 mile from the spill site, and lower impacts out to 1.5 miles. Given these potential safety and homeland security concerns, Governors should have a clear role to play in the siting of LNG facilities within their jurisdiction. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment that will support the rights of States to adequately protect their citizens' safety, security, and environment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairwoman Snowe to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. Those of us from coastal States are especially aware of the important role of the U.S. Coast Guard in maritime security, marine safety, and search and rescue of mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is instrumental in protecting our ocean resources through fisheries enforcement and response to oil spills. We ask a lot of the Coast Guard, and I am grateful to the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard for their dedication and hard work. In this bill, I believe we have provided the Coast Guard with direction and authorizations that will help them better serve the public and meet the growing demands of the future. The bill includes authorizations for Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 appropriations that are approximately 8 percent higher than for each preceding year. The bill also authorizes a number of important new programs including recommendations of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, makes a number of changes sought by the Coast Guard for personnel and property management, and makes necessary technical corrections resulting from the Coast Guard's move from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. I am especially pleased that the committee legislation authorizes $47,500,000 for the Coast Guard's continued operation and maintenance of the Nation's only Polar Ice Breaker fleet. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed transferring the funding for operation and maintenance of these vessels to the National Science Foundation, while leaving operational responsibility with the Coast Guard. No other Coast Guard asset is funded in this manner. Subjecting the icebreaker program to the budgeting decisions of another federal agency would definitely lead to an uncertain future for the Coast Guard's three icebreakers, ultimately undermining the ability of the Coast Guard to maintain these assets, and threatening the ability of the United States to maintain a presence in the polar regions over the long term. Section 203 of this legislation specifically calls on the Coast Guard to take all necessary measures to maintain its current fleet of polar icebreakers, rather than transferring this responsibility to the NSF. This bill includes important funding for additional Coast Guard capital improvement priorities including $10,000,000 for the completion of the vessel traffic system upgrade for Puget Sound, one of two regions nationwide that has not yet benefited from this important upgrade in maritime traffic management and safety. This upgraded vessel traffic system will improve vessel traffic efficiency and safety throughout Washington's coastal waters. This funding also includes $3 million for completion of a Coast Guard administrative building on Pier 36 in Seattle that was badly damaged in the Olympia earthquake in 2001. This building is the Command Center for the Coast Guard's Puget Sound search and rescue and homeland security activities and these funds will greatly improve the Coast Guard's capabilities in this area. I am also pleased that the bill directs the Coast Guard to report to the Commerce Committee on opportunities for, the feasibility of, co- locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of other armed services branches, and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out various Coast Guard missions. One such facility where co- location may prove beneficial to both the Coast Guard and the Navy is Naval Station Everett, which will be included in the Coast Guard's evaluation. In addition, the bill promotes the use of alternative fuels by requiring the Coast Guard to evaluate the feasibility, costs, and potential cost savings of using bio-diesel fuel in new and existing Coast Guard vehicles and vessels, with a focus on ports such as the Port of Seattle with very high vessel traffic density. Bio-diesel and other alternative vehicle fuels are already used by the Army at Fort Lewis, King County Metro Transit, and several school districts and cities in Washington State. We have included in the bill a provision that would extend a requirement for non-tank vessels of over 400 gross tons, operating in waters out to 12 miles from the U.S., to prepare emergency response plans for oil spills. As we have learned with unfortunate oil spills in the past, such as the recent Daleo Passage Spill, every second matters. Requiring large vessels operating in coastal waters to have an emergency response plan will help prevent oil spill disasters and, in the event of a spill, mitigate their effects through preparedness. Finally, the bill makes several important changes to the Coast Guard's management of personnel. One of these changes modifies current Coast Guard rules regarding recalling reservists for acts of terrorism and for longer periods of time. This provision ensures that the clock for the length of the recall begins to run on the first day that a reservist reports to active duty, including for training. Another provision ensures that the director of the Boating Safety Office remains a uniformed officer at the level of captain, in response to concerns from the boating safety community that the Coast Guard was eliminating this billet. Effective Coast Guard operations are important for the State of Washington and for the Nation. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Stevens, and Inouye in introducing this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and with the Coast Guard to move this legislation quickly through the Committee and the Senate.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Chairwoman Snowe to introduce the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2005. Those of us from coastal States are especially aware of the important role of the U.S. Coast Guard in maritime security, marine safety, and search and rescue of mariners. In addition, the Coast Guard is instrumental in protecting our ocean resources through fisheries enforcement and response to oil spills. We ask a lot of the Coast Guard, and I am grateful to the men and women of the U.S. Coast Guard for their dedication and hard work. In this bill, I believe we have provided the Coast Guard with direction and authorizations that will help them better serve the public and meet the growing demands of the future. The bill includes authorizations for Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 appropriations that are approximately 8 percent higher than for each preceding year. The bill also authorizes a number of important new programs including recommendations of the United States Commission on Ocean Policy, makes a number of changes sought by the Coast Guard for personnel and property management, and makes necessary technical corrections resulting from the Coast Guard's move from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. I am especially pleased that the committee legislation authorizes $47,500,000 for the Coast Guard's continued operation and maintenance of the Nation's only Polar Ice Breaker fleet. The administration's budget for fiscal year 2006 proposed transferring the funding for operation and maintenance of these vessels to the National Science Foundation, while leaving operational responsibility with the Coast Guard. No other Coast Guard asset is funded in this manner. Subjecting the icebreaker program to the budgeting decisions of another federal agency would definitely lead to an uncertain future for the Coast Guard's three icebreakers, ultimately undermining the ability of the Coast Guard to maintain these assets, and threatening the ability of the United States to maintain a presence in the polar regions over the long term. Section 203 of this legislation specifically calls on the Coast Guard to take all necessary measures to maintain its current fleet of polar icebreakers, rather than transferring this responsibility to the NSF. This bill includes important funding for additional Coast Guard capital improvement priorities including $10,000,000 for the completion of the vessel traffic system upgrade for Puget Sound, one of two regions nationwide that has not yet benefited from this important upgrade in maritime traffic management and safety. This upgraded vessel traffic system will improve vessel traffic efficiency and safety throughout Washington's coastal waters. This funding also includes $3 million for completion of a Coast Guard administrative building on Pier 36 in Seattle that was badly damaged in the Olympia earthquake in 2001. This building is the Command Center for the Coast Guard's Puget Sound search and rescue and homeland security activities and these funds will greatly improve the Coast Guard's capabilities in this area. I am also pleased that the bill directs the Coast Guard to report to the Commerce Committee on opportunities for, the feasibility of, co- locating Coast Guard assets and personnel at facilities of other armed services branches, and entering into cooperative agreements for carrying out various Coast Guard missions. One such facility where co- location may prove beneficial to both the Coast Guard and the Navy is Naval Station Everett, which will be included in the Coast Guard's evaluation. In addition, the bill promotes the use of alternative fuels by requiring the Coast Guard to evaluate the feasibility, costs, and potential cost savings of using bio-diesel fuel in new and existing Coast Guard vehicles and vessels, with a focus on ports such as the Port of Seattle with very high vessel traffic density. Bio-diesel and other alternative vehicle fuels are already used by the Army at Fort Lewis, King County Metro Transit, and several school districts and cities in Washington State. We have included in the bill a provision that would extend a requirement for non-tank vessels of over 400 gross tons, operating in waters out to 12 miles from the U.S., to prepare emergency response plans for oil spills. As we have learned with unfortunate oil spills in the past, such as the recent Daleo Passage Spill, every second matters. Requiring large vessels operating in coastal waters to have an emergency response plan will help prevent oil spill disasters and, in the event of a spill, mitigate their effects through preparedness. Finally, the bill makes several important changes to the Coast Guard's management of personnel. One of these changes modifies current Coast Guard rules regarding recalling reservists for acts of terrorism and for longer periods of time. This provision ensures that the clock for the length of the recall begins to run on the first day that a reservist reports to active duty, including for training. Another provision ensures that the director of the Boating Safety Office remains a uniformed officer at the level of captain, in response to concerns from the boating safety community that the Coast Guard was eliminating this billet. Effective Coast Guard operations are important for the State of Washington and for the Nation. I am pleased to join Senators Snowe, Stevens, and Inouye in introducing this legislation and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Commerce Committee and with the Coast Guard to move this legislation quickly through the Committee and the Senate.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to mark the 33rd anniversary of the enactment of title IX, a law that has opened doors to educational opportunities for countless women and girls across America. Prior to passing title IX, roughly 295,000 girls participated in high school sports, and only about 25,000 played sports at the college level. When President Nixon signed the educational amendments of 1972 into law 33 years ago, skeptics claimed the law would do little to change women's participation in sports. They could not have been more wrong. Recent data show that nearly 2.6 million high school girls and over 135,000 women in college participate in organized sports, constituting more than 40 percent of all high school athletes. In Washington State, women at public colleges and universities represented less than one-third of most schools' athletes less than 15 years ago. Today, women represent 48 percent of athletes at public institutions of higher education in our State. As the numbers of girls participating in sports has increased, there has been a decrease in the number of girls who drop out of school, smoke, drink alcohol or have unwanted pregnancies. What's more, adolescent girls that participate in organized sports enjoy improved physical and mental health throughout their lives. Today, 1 in every 2.5 girls participates in athletics, which is an 800-percent increase in participation rates since the enactment of title IX. Yet attempts to weaken title IX persist. Last March, the Department of Education issued a policy guidance that would weaken Title IX. The new clarification would allow institutions to avoid offering sports opportunities to women if a sufficient number of the student body failed to respond to an e-mail survey expressing interest in the program. This allows universities to use what may be highly questionable, potentially inaccurate e-mail survey results to prove that the interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex have been accommodated, as title IX requires. I am deeply concerned that this policy guidance represents the current administration's repeated attempts to diminish the enforcement of this very important law and believe that e-mail surveys will likely underestimate the need to expand athletic opportunities for women. The growth of opportunity for women and girls should not hang on the outcome of such informal means of data collection. Our Nation has taken great strides toward equity, and title IX has played a significant role in that success. Millions of girls have access to opportunities that their mothers never knew. However, there is still much to be done before we can say that males and females are treated equability in education. Further progress hinges on our continued commitment to the principles of title IX and proper enforcement of the law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Nelson- Martinez amendment, which would remove from the energy bill language that threatens decades-old Congressional and Executive Branch protections of sensitive coastal areas. Protecting our Nation's fragile coasts is vitally important to my State's economy. On the west coast of Washington, the livelihoods of many rural communities depend on fishing, tourism, and shellfish farming. These multi-million dollar industries depend on clean water and pristine coastlines. In addition, the U.S. has entered into numerous treaties with coastal Indian tribes. Many of these treaties guarantee tribal fishing and shellfishing harvesting rights. We cannot set in motion a process that could damage these tribes' ways of life, or allow any potential abrogation of our Nation's trust responsibilities. Over the last several years, Washington State has been a leader in protecting sensitive marine areas. We worked closely with the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration to establish the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary, which encompasses most of the waters off of the northwest coast of Washington. The sanctuary is home to hundreds of species including marine mammals. These mammals include the majestic Orca whale, whose 20 percent population decline over the past decade triggered a depleted listing under the Marine Mammal Protection Act and may lead to a threatened listing under the Endangered Species Act. I am very concerned that the exploratory activities allowed under the Senate Energy Bill could further harm this important symbol of the Northwest. There are those who argue that a mere inventory of off-shore oil and gas supplies would do no harm. But I would ask my colleagues to consider emerging scientific evidence related to seismic technology used to conduct these surveys. Studies have suggested that these techniques are more invasive than originally believed--particularly when it comes to their acoustic disruption of marine ecosystems. Potential interference with the sensory capacities of marine mammals may jeopardize fundamental activities such as foraging for food, avoiding predators, and caring for young. Moreover, many coastal residents of my State still shudder when they recall the thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds, and great shards of oil-blackened timber that followed a 1989 oil spill off Grays Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well blow out could be many times worse. While some argue that this is simply a study, my response is that we should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars to study something we know we do not want to do. My constituents have told me they will not accept drilling rigs off the coast of communities like Willapa Bay, Neah Bay, or the mouth of the Columbia River. There is an important question here. Where is it appropriate to drill, and where is it inappropriate? I agree with many of the Senators who have cited our Nation's growing need for more natural gas supplies. While I fully recognize this challenge, according to the EIA and MMS, the potential supplies off the coast of Washington are dwarfed by at least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that we know already exists in Alaskan fields. That is gas that is currently being pumped back into the ground, and it is the reason we need to expedite the construction of a pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 States. Building this pipeline would provide years of domestic gas supply, create thousands of jobs, and provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry. The Pew Oceans Commission has highlighted the fragility of our oceans and coastal resources and recommended we look at our oceans in a holistic manner--not through the narrow lens of oil and gas production but to look at the overall benefits provided by the oceans. I think the commission's findings confirm the need to reject any provision that moves us towards future oil and gas drilling in National Marine Sanctuaries or off the coasts of protected federally owned national parks and wildlife refuges. I encourage my colleagues to vote for the amendment. I thank the Senators from Florida for their leadership on this important issue.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. The goal of this amendment is to reduce our foreign oil imports and exposure to the uncertainties of world oil markets. Because of the geologic realities of the way in which oil reserves are distributed across the globe, continued increased demand for oil will result in a growing dependence on imports. While the U.S. is situated on just 3 percent of the world's reserves, the Middle East is home to two-thirds, with a full quarter located in just one country, Saudi Arabia. In order to curb our growing reliance on imports, it is thus necessary to reduce demand for petroleum itself, across all sectors of the economy.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL. There is nothing in this amendment that precludes the President from requesting additional legal authority to achieve the target for 2015. Certainly, any legislative proposal or recommendations from the President would be considered by Congress, through the typical legislative process. Rather, the provision in (c)(2)(B) is intended to make clear that this amendment, on its face, does not grant the President any broad, new additional authorities not previously contemplated.

Ms. CANTWELL. The amendment assumes that the President has at his disposal adequate authority to develop and implement measures that will help achieve the goal of reducing imports on foreign oil. However, the amendment is technology-neutral and establishes a 20-year vision. As such, it is difficult to predict with any specificity what direction new technologies may take, and whether issues may arise that require additional legislation or Congressional action. For example, if biofuels begin to displace a significantly larger portion of petroleum- based fuels in the United States, certain infrastructure-related barriers may arise that require additional authority or Congressional action. Similarly, there are certain to be issues associated with infrastructure, interoperability and international technology standards associated with the development of hydrogen fuel cells. Because the Cantwell amendment is a call to accelerate the development of alternatives to petroleum-based fuel, yet does not purport to choose technology winners and losers, it is premature to speculate on whether additional authorities or Congressional action may be required. However, it does assume that proposals to expand the range of tools available to the President to achieve the Cantwell amendment's goal would be considered through the normal channels of Congressional debate and approval.

Ms. CANTWELL. Because the amendment is technology-neutral and simply lays out a vision, accelerated ethanol production and use is not specifically assumed. However, there is no question that biofuels can play an important role in achieving the goal established by the Cantwell amendment, by displacing imported petroleum-based products with domestic fuel derived from plant matter. In fact, it has been estimated that increased domestic biofuels production can contribute more than half of the oil savings goal established by the Cantwell amendment. It is also worth noting that the underlying bill contains important provisions that will help accelerate the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels, including provisions I authored that would provide incentives, research, development and demonstration of processes to produce ethanol from cellulosic sources. While not specifically prescribed by the Cantwell energy security amendment, these measures would assist substantially in achieving the amendment's goal.