Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today the President of the United States nominated former Representative Rob Portman to serve as our next U.S. representative and trade ambassador. I am hopeful that my colleagues on the Senate Finance Committee will move expeditiously to hold a hearing and approve his nomination as soon as possible. In January of this year, the current U.S. trade representative and a team of European Union negotiators agreed to sit down to try to negotiate a new agreement for how aerospace markets will work in the future. We are 60-days into the 90-day period that they set for their own discussions. Even though our current trade representative, Ambassador Zoellick, has been confirmed as Deputy Secretary of State, he is going to continue negotiating on behalf of the U.S. Government. I know these negotiations are in very capable hands, and I applaud the aggressive stance being taken by the Administration on these trade talks. These trade talks were entered into by both sides knowing full well that World Trade Organization sanctions were a real possibility if the playing field in aerospace does not become fairer. Both sides demonstrated a willingness to get rid of unfair subsidies and a good faith stance on both sides to negotiate. That is why I come to the Senate floor now to make sure the European Union knows we in the United States Senate remain very committed to these discussions. We are also very concerned that they are not at the table in good faith, if in fact the clock is ticking away and we are not making progress towards the goal of eliminating unfair subsidized financing of airplanes. That 90-day clock is indeed ticking, and if a settlement is going to be reached on this matter without WTO intervention, it needs to happen immediately. There are fewer than 30 days left in the agreed time frame. From the news reports, these discussions seem to be at a standstill. Obviously, these discussions need to be re-energized and, hopefully, achieve a successful end result. Otherwise, as I have mentioned, the parties will be forced into a WTO battle, and I am sure Congress will consider other tools that are at our disposal, as the administration continues to seek swift and firm action in this case. To date, the Bush administration and the trade negotiators have shown solid leadership and strong resolve, first in bringing this case to the WTO last fall. Second, it approached subsequent negotiations with the EU in a serious commitment to reach an end resolution. I have to say, in the beginning it seemed that the Europeans were equally interested in a settlement because Commissioner Mandelson, the European Union's chief negotiator, signaled in a public comment, ``We need to make progress, and I intend to do so.'' This was reported by the Bloomberg News Service. He also said: ``The objectives of the negotiations are primarily to establish fair market-based competition between Boeing and Airbus.'' Despite these public comments, EU negotiator actions and subsequent rhetoric suggest something different than ending unfair subsidized financing. Instead of a genuine commitment to end subsidies, the Europeans have walked away from their commitment to this goal. Now, it seems that the discussions may be dragged out over a much longer period of time, maybe avoiding resolution or delaying a path to actually eliminating these subsidies. It is very important that the EU meet its commitment to end these negotiations on time. When these parties reached an initial accord in 1992, a number of important issues were unresolved. We do not want to make the same mistake this time by leaving too much on the table, only to see the WTO come in, in a process that we know will be more of a winner-take-all process. In particular, EU negotiators must remain intent in staying at the table to discuss the issue of launch aid, the single most troublesome issue that I think we need to discuss. The United States cannot stand by while the EU stalls these discussions about launch aid. Today, we all know the aerospace industry remains very important to the United States. The aerospace sector generates about 15 percent of our Nation's gross domestic product. However, I think the real issue for us is that the United States builds and finances planes through Wall Street and the private marketplace. Our domestic companies should not have to compete against the backing of European governments, against the deep pockets of governments that distort the global marketplace. If, in fact, the EU drags its feet, how will these issues be resolved? Will they continue to argue that these launch aid subsidies are not the issue? Launch aid has provided Airbus with over $15 billion in subsidization, really unfairly propping up Airbus at the expense of the U.S. aerospace market and its workers. In the last 15 years, the U.S. aerospace industry has lost about 700,000 jobs. Essentially, launch aid becomes a risk-free, low-cost government bank for the development of new lines of aircraft. The company only needs to repay the loans if the new product succeeds. Nowhere in our private sector does anybody, any company, get such a deal that they only have to pay the banker back if, in fact, the product succeeds. So this is a very important issue. Obviously, launch aid puts our domestic manufacturers at an unfair competitive disadvantage. Airbus remains unfettered by the realities of the marketplace when launching new jetliners, while American companies must assume substantial market risk every time they unveil a new product. If Airbus bets on the wrong plane, no problem, no harm, no foul, the loans are forgiven. This means Airbus can proceed with the design and production of a new plane without ever turning a profit on an existing product line. It also means that Airbus can undercut the price and pursue more aggressive financing practices than the U.S. can. Obviously, you can see the end result is that Airbus can offer a cheaper plane in the marketplace by unfairly subsidizing the financing of their planes. Well, nevertheless, Airbus has continued, even though it has grown into a mature company, to receive 33 percent of the funding for its product development from European governments since 1992, translating into billions in launch aid loans at below market rates. At the same time, it has avoided an additional $35 billion in current debt due to this subsidy. This launch aid distorts the global marketplace. What we want to see in aerospace is competition that drives opportunities for the consumers. I believe that is why the United States has taken its aggressive position in saying that it will go to the WTO if necessary. I think it is time now to make sure that these negotiations between the United States and the European Union, which originally were announced in January, are completed as soon as possible. But maybe it is not surprising that they are lagging at this moment. I say that because Airbus has moved ahead with a plan to submit $1.7 billion in an application for new launch aid for a new airplane, the A- 350, which is designed to compete head-to-head with the Boeing 787. While negotiations to end launch aid are ongoing, there is simultaneously a new application to the European Union to support launch aid for a new plane. I believe that is probably why the Airbus CEO stated, about the new plane, the A-350: `` . . . is easily financeable [sic] by Airbus without launch aid, but as long as there is refundable launch aid available, we will apply for it.'' This means, as long as they can get refunds later on launch aid, they will apply for it. So while the European Union is supposedly at the table negotiating with the United States about getting rid of launch aid subsidies, it is continuing to discuss deals about launch aid for new planes. It is clear that this does not paint a pretty picture. The European Union cannot have it both ways. It cannot pretend to be serious about negotiations with the United States to end launch aid subsidies and all the while sending a wink to Airbus about launch aid for the A-350. The EU must level with the American public and the global community on whether it is serious about ending unfair subsidized financing of their aircraft. Specifically, I think Commissioner Mandelson and the EU should consider the following actions: first, EU negotiators should declare their opposition to the launch aid for the A-350 and summarily reject the pending application that Airbus has prepared. Second, the EU should also reject all launch aid for future aircraft models. We need to address these unfair subsidized financing issues and put an end to launch aid so that aircraft financing is on a level playing field. Failure to follow these processes will lead to swift action by our administration and the U.S. Government. Today, the U.S. stands ready to reach a resolution on this issue, but we must have a willing partner. The White House has expressed a strong commitment to finding an agreement, and the President has the backing of this Senator, and I believe many in Congress, to seek a resolution to this issue. I am sure my colleagues will join me in considering all options at our disposal to help find a resolution to this issue. Last week, I was invited to the Smithsonian for a commemorative celebration of Space Ship One, a successful marvel, sponsored by Paul Allen and many others. The celebration marked the successful launch of the first commercial, manned spaceflight-something from which individual consumers will benefit in the future. The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum gave that award, and the flight signaled a new chapter in aviation history. There's something about the spirit of competition, about a group of people who came together to compete towards an exciting new chapter of aviation, and a level playing field of competition that delivered a great result. Which is exactly what we have to get from the Europeans--a level playing field, to deliver a better result for the entire global community, for consumers, and for purchasers of aerospace and commercial aviation equipment by guaranteeing that we are going to have a level playing field. I hope that these negotiations will continue in earnest and I am confident that Ambassador Zoellick and the new nominee, Mr. Portman, will continue to be aggressive in resolving this issue. I believe we in the United States have fostered an environment for true competition for the private sector, to drive this industry to the next level. However, we need fair and balanced trade to make that successful. I hope the Europeans will not stall these discussions, but that they will embrace the idea of fair competition as the end result. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, then how much time remains on the ANWR debate for both sides?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, information was provided by the President's own economist and energy supply analysts who were asked recently about whether refuge drilling was going to have any impact on oil prices. Even the President's own economist at the Energy Information Administration found that opening ANWR will have negligible impact on prices. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the resolution by the National Congress of American Indians be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, if I could take a few moments to point out that this Senator certainly wants America to move forward with the development of new energy supply. In fact, I am saying the whole debate should be about supply and not recognizing revenue in the budget for an ill-conceived project in a wildlife refuge. We can get as much supply or more by doing the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That natural gas supply would save 6 billion barrels over 10 years; use of off-the-shelf renewables and energy efficiency technologies, 4.9 billion barrels in the next 10 years; increasing use of ethanol in our gasoline, 5.1 billion barrels over 10 years; improving tire inflation and automobile maintenance--you don't have to come up with a new place to drill--5.4 billion barrels; increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards, 10 billion barrels. So we certainly are about supply; we are just for a cleaner supply. Why are we for a cleaner supply? Because if you look at it, and you compare the various proposals I have outlined with drilling in the Arctic Refuge, you get increased pollution from refuge drilling, increased CO2 levels, you impact Federal lands, and I don't believe you are going to have any immediate impact on our country's energy resources. These other actions I have outlined actually decrease pollution levels. Those are the actions we should be taking, not refuge drilling. Now, a lot has been said about gasoline and gasoline prices. We ought to be investigating why gasoline prices are so high, not accepting that we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil. In fact, a recent attorneys general office statement stated that gasoline producers marked up prices 152 percent between January and March of 2003. In the first 3 months of 2003, average gasoline prices increased 57 cents in California alone. A trade industry magazine talked about the peculiar incidence of exporting distillate. That is taking our supply and exporting it. What does that do? It decreases the supply in the United States, and it increases the spot market prices at refineries. There is nothing in the budget resolution that guarantees we are going to lower gasoline prices. And there is nothing in the language of the budget resolution that guarantees any supply recovered from the Arctic Refuge will even stay in the United States. I wish my colleagues would embrace these facts and guarantee that if we are doing to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use. But I doubt they will guarantee that. So now we are talking about drilling in a wildlife area. In doing so, we will increase pollution and not get our country off our foreign oil dependence and certainly not lower gasoline prices any time in the near term. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I urge Members to support the Cantwell amendment. It is clear what our options are today. We can continue this proposal to try to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, even though Congress previously has said let's not do that and let's preserve the wildlife. We know that the amount of oil generated, according to the President's own economic advisers, will have a negligible impact on oil prices. Maybe that is because there is no guarantee that the revenue collected from this or the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will be kept in America. This oil will be exported, part of international markets, and do nothing to help us get our overdependence on oil off this track and on to the right track. I urge my colleagues to turn this argument down and to start on an energy future that is about renewables, about conservation, about new energy technologies. Our legacy on this floor is not going to be a pipeline in Alaska but preserving a wildlife area and getting on with an energy future that America wants and needs.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield the Senator an additional 1 minute.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have submitted to the desk the amendment to strike the language out of the budget that would recognize revenue from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We started this discussion last night with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about why America should not be focusing on drilling in a wildlife refuge, turn down the recognition of this revenue, and focus instead on an energy policy that will put America in better stead, get us off our dependency on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and focus on the technology that will truly make us energy independent. Many have discussed or seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To remind my colleagues, we established this refuge because we believed in protecting the wildlife that existed there--the porcupine caribou herd, the polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, sheep, falcons, migratory birds as shown in this picture. We wanted to fulfill our international fish and wildlife treaty obligations. Also, we wanted to provide an opportunity for continued subsistence for local residents and we wanted to ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge. These pictures from the refuge show a delicate coastline area in the northern parts of our country. The purpose of designating and protecting the wildlife refuge was because of its unique nature. One of the Episcopalian bishops from Alaska who was here yesterday spoke about the refuge as actual sacred ground and the fact that the preservation of it means so much to many Alaskans as it does to many people throughout America. But we are here today on what I call a budget end run to recognize revenue in the budget as a way to try and open drilling in ANWR, to open drilling in this pristine wildlife area. Now, why, if you want to support drilling in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, do you want to try to do it on the budget? My point is, it starts a precedent for opening other areas by simply putting money in the budget. Why not expedite timber sales by simply recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling on the coastal regions of the country by recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling in Yellowstone National Park by recognizing revenues in the budget? It is a bad precedent. It is a bad precedent for America because if you look at the President's potential U.S. oil and gas plan for America, you can see that the administration has oil plans for all over the country: up in the Northwest in the State of Washington, which I represent; and neighboring States, Oregon and California; along the eastern seaboard; in Florida, significant areas; up in the Great Lakes region. These are all the potential areas that the administration has designated as opportunities for oil drilling. Do we want to stick in the budget revenue recognizing oil production in these areas and simply subvert the normal process that would allow us to debate and consider whether we should have these oil sources recognized? This particular Senator agrees with some of the editorials around the country when it says this sets a bad precedent. In fact, there are many newspapers, particularly from coastal regions such as mine that are concerned. Let's go to the St. Petersburg newspaper. It said: So why should Floridians be concerned about the caribou? Obviously, there are no caribou in Florida. But the caribou being driven out of their icy habitat by oil rigs, because of this, for Florida, ``means there, by the grace of Congress, go we.'' That is what the St. Petersburg newspaper is trying to say. If you decide to drill in Alaska and recognize in the budget this revenue, what will stop them from doing this in other parts of the country? Another Florida newspaper said: The costs and risks of drilling in the Alaskan refuge outweigh the benefits. [And] opposition to the drilling off Florida's coast would be compromised. So this is not only this Senator saying this, these are people from across the country who are concerned about this process of sticking money in the budget as a way to achieve the goals of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Well, I can tell you, I think opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the wrong direction for America. It is the wrong direction for America for many reasons. As I said, we have a pristine wildlife area we want to protect. If someone thinks it can coexist, if somehow drilling for oil in this region and the wildlife refuge can coexist, I would like them to think about this. In the Prudhoe Bay area, we have averaged 500 oil spills a year. From 1972 to 1986, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation reported 23,000 spills of oil and hazardous materials on the Northern Slope. Annual emissions from air pollutants on the Northern Slope include at least 4,000 tons of hydrocarbons, more than 6,000 tons of methane gas, 6,000 to 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide. If that is not enough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have reported that the snowfields around Prudhoe Bay have high concentrations of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and copper. For some of those chemicals, the nitrogen oxide level is as much as in Washington, DC. And we are talking about just an area in Alaska. If you think drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge can coexist with the refuge, I would also like to suggest we take a look at the even newer Alaskan oilfields which have significant problems with environmental management. In February 2000, one oil company was sentenced to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement new environmental management programs, and to serve 5 years probation for failure to report illegal dumping of hazardous materials in certain oil wells. They also paid an additional $6.5 million in civil penalties, while its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine. A 2003 study of by National Academy of Sciences, which studied the cumulative effects of current drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, documented significant environmental and cultural effects that have accumulated after three decades of oil development on Alaska's Northern Slope. So I think it is very foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist, not when we are talking about clean water, not when we are talking about preserving a wildlife habitat, not when we are talking about continuing to preserve what has been called a very unique area of our country. But there is something I think the Senate needs to understand as we take this vote. This is a good proposal for Alaska, and I don't fault my colleagues for trying to propose this particular proposal. I would much rather, as I said last night, work with my colleagues on a natural gas proposal and provide the resources necessary to build a pipeline and access a significant source of natural gas supply that would help us in America getting off our dependence of oil in general and develop a much cleaner supply for Americans. But there is nothing in this language that guarantees the oil produced in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would even stay in the United States. The oil companies are free to export that oil. So for those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices--and, believe me, we will not see this oil for 10 years, and it is only a 6-month supply, and it will have a minimal impact on markets--it certainly has no guarantee to have an impact on price or supply in the rest of the U.S. market because the oil drilled in the refuge can be exported. I also question whether the estimates of money in the budget resolution are even valid, whether the numbers are even correct. That is because current law requires that there be a 90-10 split between revenues that go to Alaska and the Federal Government. This budget resolution supposedly recognizes a 50-50 split, which I do not understand how one gets to that conclusion, because it is not current law. In any case, that split means Alaska residents would get $717 per person per year. So I get why it is a great deal for Alaskans. But it is not a great deal for Americans. Americans need to move ahead and produce a variety of sources of energy supply. I am going to talk about that in a few minutes, but I want to recognize some of my colleagues who also want to speak. What we need to recognize is that drilling in the refuge only increases America's reliance on fossil fuel, and that, according to another newspaper editorial in our country, is being recognized by Americans all over. They know that would increase America's reliance on fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on imported oil. That is what the other side would like to say the debate is about, improving our independence. What we should do instead is invest in new technologies and change our strategy. We do not need to open a wildlife refuge and continue to depend on something that we know has a very high chance of polluting the environment and harming the wildlife, but get on to investing in the technology that will diversify our energy supply and give us a secure future. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent we move to the Cantwell amendment regarding ANWR and use up that time and recognize the Senator from North Dakota when he returns.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. As we close debate on the Cantwell amendment, which I hope my colleagues will support, I feel we have had a hearty discussion this morning about what America should do as it relates to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but, more importantly, what we should also do about planning for America's future. I point out that today a Gallup poll was released that shows where the American people are. We may be very divided in the Senate, but the American public is consistent in its concern about and interest in conservation. In fact, Americans by a 2-to-1 margin say the United States should emphasize greater consumer conservation over existing energy supplies, rather than production of oil, gas, coal, or other supplies. Now, that is what the American public wants. That is certainly what people in the State of Washington want. That is certainly what the people in Puget Sound want. I say that because I think they are like many Americans in that they want to reduce CO2 emissions. They want to do something about global warming. They want to do something about diversifying our nation's energy supply. We have great companies in my state that are adding to the Washington economy, and they want to diversify into various energy technologies that will help us in the future. So, no, the majority of Washingtonians do not want to see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They want to see it protected. In fact, it is the one thing I think they feel most strongly about; that is, they want to lead the way on a new energy economy and show that we can have higher CAFE standards, produce alternative fuels, make a dent in our gasoline use by blending it with ethanol, and get energy conservation plans moving. But when it comes to gasoline prices, I think they are like every other American, they are darn concerned about the high gasoline prices in America and wonder why they are so high when four refineries are located in the State of Washington. And for a market that was manipulated on electricity prices, and with very little help from the other side of the aisle in getting those market manipulation contracts voided, the Puget Sound economy remains concerned about why the price of gasoline, which is a commodity that is refined so close to home, is the highest price in the country. Now, there is nothing in the budget resolution language that says that oil produced in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will stay in the United States. That is right, no guarantee at all. The oil will be exported to other countries. So as the President's economist has said, it will have negligible impact on the price of gasoline. To open up a wildlife refuge for a minimal amount of oil, that even the President's economist says will have a negligible effect on price and supply, is an ill-advised plan. My colleagues have already talked about the pollution and the environmental problems caused by drilling. But I want to point out, America does have a different future. I will work with my colleagues from Alaska on a proposal that is three times the job creation for us and for Alaska--the Alaska natural gas pipeline. America was smart enough, in the 1970s, to get off our dependence on home heating oil because we decided as a country we could not continue to be held hostage by Middle East oil policy. We had a 35-percent reduction in home heating oil use. It is time to do the same with gasoline, but not by producing more oil, but by changing and focusing on developing alternatives. We can focus on building a pipeline to capture Alaska's natural gas; it is the equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil. We can focus on efficiency and renewables. We can focus on ethanol. We can focus on improvements in efficiency of transportation, of tires, and increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, which some of the speakers on the other side, I should note, do not support a higher automobile fuel efficiency standard. That would be a great way, by reducing the need for 10 billion barrels of oil over the next 10 years, of saving and getting us off of our overdependence. A young woman who came in to see us yesterday presented us with a tire gauge, and she showed us that if Americans had the right level of inflation in their car's tires it could save over 200,000 barrels of oil a day. So we have a choice. We have a choice about whether we are going to continue down this road of a fossil-fuel economy to the degree that we are going to say it is even worth it, it is even worth it to go into a wildlife refuge to find oil, or we are going to move our country forward on a new energy plan. I encourage my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and strike this language from the budget resolution.

Ms. CANTWELL. How much time remains?

Ms. CANTWELL. We have heard a lot about tribes in Alaska. I want to point out to my colleagues that the National Congress of American Indians, an organization representing more than 500 tribes across the country, have previously opposed drilling in the wildlife refuge, and that certainly is what we are talking about--a debate of national significance. I point out that many people in Puget Sound and across the country do believe this isn't going to do anything to meet our country's energy needs. This newspaper article says: Drilling in the refuge would increase America's reliance on fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on imported oil. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who has been so outspoken and important to this debate. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds so I may finish up.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues as we continue this debate to think about this proposal and the fact that we ought to be taking ourselves in a different direction, and this proposal will not provide us the leadership for an energy future that we need. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thought for the benefit of my colleagues we would lay that down tonight so people could understand the amendment and we could continue debating it in our time this evening and continue debating it tomorrow. I hope that clarifies issues for my colleagues. I start by saying a word to the Senators from Alaska because I think both Senators from Alaska have been diligent in their concerns for this issue, in their advocacy for making sure the issues they would like to represent are heard in this debate, and that the accuracy of information provided is correct. I certainly applaud them for that. But, I certainly don't diminish the difference of opinion we might express tonight as it relates to where this country should go on an energy policy. I believe our energy policy must be very aggressive in creating a future for new energy technology and renewables, in making a downpayment on getting off of our overdependence on foreign oil, and, specifically in continuing to diversify off of our country's dependence on oil in general. I may have a different opinion about what I think our energy strategy should be. If the last generation of Americans were smart enough to put a man on the Moon, this generation of Americans ought to be smart enough to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. But that assumes we would pass an energy bill that would outline these policies and that we would have a debate about them. We have been trying to have this debate, and we certainly have had disagreements about what the policy should be. For the last couple of years, I have expressed concern over our country's overfocus on fossil fuels, the fact that 60 percent of the incentives in the Energy bill have focused on fossil fuels. And I think we should start incentivizing other types of energy supply and move ahead. That is why I find this particular process to be an end run on energy policy and energy discussions. In fact, I think it is somewhat absurd that we can simply mandate the opening of ANWR by putting language in the budget, by simply saying: Let's put the revenue in the budget, and by doing that, we will then start the process for legislating that ANWR could be opened. The reason why that is so bothersome to this particular Senator-- think, for example, if in the next budget we put revenue in there expediting timber sales in our National Forests or basically expediting the leasing off the coast of Florida for oil production. Or, God forbid, why don't we put revenue in the resolution recognizing oil leasing in Yellowstone National Park, even though it is a National Park? Why don't we do this process by continuing to put revenues in the budget resolution? Well, I think the energy debate deserves far more attention than simply sticking language in the budget resolution demanding the Energy Committee report a bill capture this revenue. I think that is what other people have started to see about this proposal. In fact, the New York Times recently ran a story about this, the refuge drilling, and basically pointed out: Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door for more geological promising prospects off the coasts of California and Florida. So my first question is, If we don't stop this now, where does this stop in the future? I ask my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, if today you are going to allow the opening of ANWR by simply putting language in the budget requiring that we produce revenue, where will you go next? And clearly, I do not think the discussion of opening up leasing off the coast of Florida or the coast of California or even in ANWR belongs in the budget resolution. I do not think we should legislate in the budget resolution. To me, the process of having this debate now is very bothersome. But I understand there are some who will continue to push this until they find a way to make this proposal a reality. I do not think anybody can say our side of the aisle cannot be concerned about this type of tactic. I simply say, we should vote for my amendment tomorrow and turn this proposal down and start a real discussion on the energy bill. The senior Senator from Alaska, I know, is very concerned that this not be referred to as a wilderness area. He is right. It is a wildlife refuge. He is right. It is a wildlife refuge. It is not a wilderness area. One of my colleagues would like to make it a wilderness area, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and he has proposed legislation to do that. We have had that debate, too. We have had that debate about as long as we have had this debate about whether we should open up ANWR to oil drilling. The fact of the matter is, in 1980, section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act specifically prohibited oil and gas development in the entire refuge or the leasing or development leading to the production of oil and gas from the range unless authorized by Congress. So that is what we are here debating: unless authorized by Congress. I have given you my reasons why I do not think we should authorize on the budget resolution this significant of an action without discussing energy policy and the impacts of opening up ANWR on the refuge. I personally think there are many things we should be doing to attain our energy future. I think there are many policies that would be far more interesting to us as a country because a lot of people are trying to argue that we should do this now because it is an energy supply and it is national security. Well, I can tell you, this Senator, along with my fellow west coast Senators, is outraged over the price of gasoline in America. We are from a State such as Washington, where we have four refineries, we are the closest to the supply that you could get, and yet we have some of the highest gasoline prices in America. So what this Senator would like to see--just as I have forced and pushed, and will continue to speak out on market manipulation of electricity prices--I believe we should do our homework and make sure we are holding those responsible accountable as to: Why do we have this diversity of gasoline prices when there is so much available supply right in our backyard? I know the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, has asked for investigations into these high gasoline prices, and threatened to hold up various nominations over the issue. I have certainly put questions to various members of the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and to our own State's Governor, and will continue to do so, because I think the price of gasoline is outrageous. This particular Senator is not a supporter for opening up the SPRO. I agree, we should have energy for energy security, an energy supply. I think people have made that point and made it well. But I want to see us continue to diversify into other areas. So this Senator will join the Alaska Senators any day of the week to talk about the development, the delivery, the execution, and expedited access to Alaska natural gas. We need to have natural gas. If there is any proposal that deserves an expedited review by this body, it would be to get that production to the United States at a faster rate. Let me remind my colleagues, when security was a national debate in the 1970s, when we were all at the gasoline line filling up our cars, waiting, with the most absurd price for gasoline, America took notice. America took notice of those gas prices and said: What are we going to do about it? And we had an aggressive plan to get off of our dependence on home heating oil. We realized the price of oil was so expensive that it was not smart for America to continue a policy of investing in that as a delivery source of energy. Now, decades later, we have reduced our dependence on home heating oil 35 percent. We got the natural gas. We got the necessary supply. We got it to where people needed it. And we made a major shift in America. We took the prices that were facing us and we acted with the certainty about the future we wanted to see in America, with a cleaner source of energy supply. So first on my list would be making sure we have the North Slope natural gas pipeline project moving. We certainly heard today from a variety of people about renewable fuels. I should say, by the way, people talk about the drilling in the Arctic, and we don't know for sure, but economically recoverable oil might be somewhere between 3.2 and 5 billion barrels. That is generally what people think. Well, there is at least 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available. So that is the energy equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil. We could continue to look at renewable or nonpetroleum fuel, such as ethanol made from crops, something the other side of the aisle has also supported, and look at requirements for renewable content of gasoline. That would be about 5.1 billion barrels by 2013--again, a source of cleaner energy that would be important for us in an energy plan. We can invest in new technology to convert agriculture waste to oil, something some States are doing on a much smaller scale. But we could produce as much as 4 billion barrels of a cleaner product on an annual basis. I certainly am a fan of making sure that CAFE standards are passed by Congress. If you think about the CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, that would help us. We could save 60 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years. Why are we not focusing on that in our proposal for an energy plan? Just making sure the tires of our transportation system are properly inflated and educating America on the oil savings of that simple action could save 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Yet we are out here discussing a proposal that has been discussed for years, with much controversy and much concern because of what it focuses on--first, a refuge wildlife area that was set aside and preserved, and a focus on oil that some of us, including myself, are saying we need to diversify off of. I could go through other examples of renewable technologies, of energy efficiency technology that could continue to save the equivalent of another 4.9 billion barrels of oil--something that I know would make great progress with the building and development sectors of our country as they add efficiency improvement, and install renewable technologies and distributed generation. But that is the kind of leadership I think we should be talking about. We should not be talking about whether we want to go and open up this wildlife refuge. If I may, I know my colleagues have put up a few pictures. I would like to put up a few pictures of the area as well because I think when the area was first established as a wildlife refuge, people recognized the uniqueness of the coastal region. The government looked at it as an area to support wildlife and sustain their migration patterns. We have heard a lot about that for the last several years, the caribou and their migration habits. I never thought the Senate would become such experts on the migration habits of the caribou, but I think both sides of the aisle have expressed quite a bit of knowledge. I am simply offering a few pictures of the wildlife that resides on the coastal plain of the refuge. The reason I am showing these photographs is to remind my colleagues and individuals that we have choices, and we have options like this refuge drilling proposal that we have debated before, and it is fine to debate them. What I object to is the process of trying to essentially stick authorizing language on a budget bill. That is a bad precedent and it is trying to limit discussion on an issue that was never intended to be considered in this way without the Energy Committee and the Energy Committee debate. Now, I know some people have talked about the supply of oil we might get from the refuge. I think that New York Times article was very interesting in the sense that it said: Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would only meet a tiny fraction of America's needs.

Ms. CANTWELL. I hope you have no objection, but tomorrow at 1 o'clock you might object to the amendment, but thank you for allowing us to lay it down.

Ms. CANTWELL. We had a unanimous consent order earlier to agree to debate the amendment, and I thought it would be wise to put the amendment on the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I have sent an amendment to the desk that I am offering to strike the language from the budget resolution the reconciliation instructions to the Energy Committee that assume Arctic drilling. Specifically, under the instructions, the Energy Committee must report legislation by June 6 at the latest that produces $2.7 billion in revenue from 2006 until 2007.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee and others who have worked together for many years, despite considerable differences in the area of bankruptcy reform, to produce a bill that has passed the Senate a number of times. All that said, the bill is far from perfect, and the Senate should take full advantage of this opportunity to take a number of steps to amend this bill and improve it. I have supported amendments that improve the bill in areas where it affects particularly vulnerable consumers and retirees, and I believe we should also address incidents of corporate abuse. There are also ways to bring the bill up to date with modern technology and crime. For example, I proudly join my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in recommending to all my colleagues the pending Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe privacy amendment, Amendment No. 26. This amendment is an appropriate response to the recent erosion of informational privacy in our society, demonstrated by the ChoicePoint and Bank of America personal informational security breaches, where the personal information of thousands of people was misappropriated by identity thieves. Consumers should not have to surrender their privacy rights, just to gain access to our Nation's bankruptcy system. There are a number of reasons why it is simply sound practice for bankruptcy courts to join other Federal courts that already have a viable mechanism to file personal information of debtors and others under seal. Identity theft is a predictable outcome when criminals have virtually unfettered access to an obvious public database of people who are already vulnerable in public bankruptcy court files. In some instances, a debtor might be a battered woman, a victim of a stalker or another victim of domestic violence, and the disclosure of that person's private information may subject her to further abuse. Congress has recognized the need to render private such personal information in court filings in much of the Federal court system, and this body should now add the bankruptcy courts to the list of properly protected public entities. Although I recognize that bankruptcy courts have some discretion to protect ``scandalous or defamatory matter,'' the point or preserving privacy of this information should also be to protect information that could be used to injure the consumer, either financially or even physically. It is also clear that such courts do not have the same ability to do protect information for cause as do other Federal courts. It is time to fix this unjustifiable distinction between the privacy rights of litigants in one kind of Federal court and another. I ask my colleagues to support Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe, because people's economic and even their physical security may be in jeopardy otherwise. Let's not wait for the inevitable abuse of this loophole, which could lead to stolen identities, or physical harm, before we act. I urge my colleagues to vote for the Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am voting in favor of S.J. Res. 4, which invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's minimal risk rule. I wanted to explain to my colleagues and my constituents my reason for doing so. I understand that the use of the Congressional Review Act is rare. Congress has successfully used it only once in 2001, and its use should not be undertaken lightly. The Congressional Review Act permitting these rule disapproval resolutions became law in 1996. Although I understand from floor debate today the President intends to veto this resolution if it reaches his desk, if the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, were successful, the result of his actions would be to overturn the minimal risk rule and prohibit USDA from issuing another similar rule unless Congress authorizes the agency to act. I believe adopting this rule at this time is not the right action for our Nation's consumers and our country's beef industry. As Secretary Johanns stated during his confirmation hearing, reestablishing trade to Japan and other countries is our No. 1 priority. This goal will only be achieved when we prove that we have implemented and enforced dependable BSE firewalls. Though Canada may have taken action to eliminate some loopholes in its feed ban, and is considering additional rules to ban specialized risk materials or SRMs from animal feed, we should not open our borders until these additional firewalls are in place. And we should be doing more to ensure that our feed is not contaminated by similar loopholes in the United States. Existing loopholes in the 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban continue to pose a risk that ruminant materials may find their way into cattle feed. Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promised to close these loopholes and stated that it had reached a preliminary conclusion last July to remove SRM from all animal feed, the agency has failed to act. Therefore, to address this issue, I have introduced legislation entitled the Animal Feed Protection Act of 2005, S.73, which would ban SRMs from being used in any animal feed. This would eliminate the possibility that ruminant materials are knowingly or accidentally fed to cattle. Banning SRMs from all animal feed is an important step we can take to fully ensure the safety of ruminant feed, and I hope that the Senate's vote today will encourage our Government and the Canadian Government to act more swiftly on this issue. Some will argue that I should be convinced by the report APHIS released at the end of February stating that Canada's feed ban compliance is good. I am not convinced. On January 24, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, sent a team of technical experts to Canada to assess Canada's current feed ban and feed inspection program. The APHIS investigation was initiated in response to Canada's latest case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, which came just days after the USDA published its ``Minimal Risk Rule'' in the Federal Register on January 4, 2005. The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the control measures put in place by the Canadian Government are achieving compliance with regard to these regulations. This was a serious investigation. Canada's latest BSE case, reported on January 11, 2005, was particularly alarming because it was discovered in a cow under 7 years of age and was thus born after implementation of the 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. On January 12, 2005, I sent a letter to Secretary Veneman and then- Governor Johanns, requesting that the audit being conducted by APHIS inspectors be given time for a full and fair analysis. The final APHIS report of last week largely repeats information USDA released as part of its risk assessment supporting the minimal risk rule in January. This Senator asked for a full look, if 2 weeks of Canadian inspections yielded compelling evidence that the Canadian feed ban was being fully enforced, this report misses the mark. I strongly believe that all consumers deserve reassurance that Canadian rendering facilities, feed mills, and ranchers are in compliance with Canada's feed regulations. As you know, the ruminant feed ban has been determined to be arguably the most important BSE risk mitigation measure to protect animal health. The APHIS report states that ``Canada has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the Canadian cattle population.'' It is not clear what ``good'' compliance means. We must provide our trading partners, such as Japan and South Korea, stronger assurances than those provided in this APHIS report. We must provide them proof that we have done everything possible to control and eradicate this deadly disease as we work to reestablish the trust of their consumers and access to their markets. It is very important that USDA systematically evaluate all possible risks before reopening the border to Canadian cattle. I do not believe that USDA has completed this level of evaluation. Therefore, I will be asking the National Academy of Sciences to review the APHIS findings. They should assess whether every aspect critical to evaluating feed regulations and compliance has been addressed in this report or if additional analyses and inspections are needed. The American public must be assured that Canadian cattle will not increase the risk of BSE in the U.S. Until the American public has been assured, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the Canadians are in full compliance with feed regulations it is prudent that we delay moving forward on reopening the border until this assurance has been made. The question of what will be best for the U.S. beef industry with respect to reopening the border to Canada is complex. And deciding how best to proceed is not an easy decision to make or an easy step to take. Segments of the U.S. beef industry are clearly divided on this issue and not in agreement regarding what is best for the future of the U.S. beef industry. This is due in most part because this rule has affected industry segments in vastly different ways. Although some regions of the U.S. have been hit harder than others, I know we all agree that as a nation, reestablishing the export markets and international market share that the U.S. beef industry once held, is our No. 1 priority. With that common goal in mind, we must use basic common sense and delay going forward with the implementation of this rule at this time. Therefore, in the interest of reestablishing the trust of our trading partners and preserving the confidence of the American people, I will be voting in favor of this resolution and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a tax injustice affecting my home State of Washington, and all States that do not have a State income tax. My bill, the Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act, would prohibit States from imposing income taxes on individuals that are not residents of that State. I hear about this issue in the areas of my State that border Oregon and Idaho, both States that have income taxes. In fact, wherever I go in Vancouver and throughout Clark County, I hear time and again from constituents about the unfairness of living in Washington State--a State that does not have an income tax--and working in Oregon--a State that does have an income tax and being taxed on their income earned in Oregon. According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 2002, there were 51,991 Clark County residents working in Oregon. Taxed on their income, these nearly 52,000 individuals remitted $104 million to Oregon that year. Representing all of Washington State in Congress, it is not lost on me that an additional 30,181 Washington State residents outside of Clark County were also employed in Oregon in 2002, and these 30,000 paid the State of Oregon $49.8 million. Furthermore, there are Washington State residents working in Idaho. In 2002, 19,467 of them owed the State of Idaho $18.9 million in income taxes. While I would like to hope that most Washingtonians could find employment in Washington State, and I am grateful for the job opportunities presented to Washingtonians in Oregon, I find it antithetical to notions of lifting up the economy of Washington State to have the incomes of Washington State residents taxed in Oregon. We have historical roots in this country related to the notion of no taxation without representation. Washington residents being taxed in Oregon is contrary to this whole premise--a premise upon which American independence rested over 200 years ago. Good tax policy rests on the notion that individual's contribution to the government through taxes brings benefits to those individuals--good schools, navigable roads, safe communities, clean water, and other services. With incomes taxed in Oregon, Washington residents receive very little benefit for the contributions made to the State of Oregon. Granted, Oregon maintains the infrastructure used by Washingtonians to get to work; but there are a number of benefits that Washington residents never realize from the taxes they pay. For example, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive in-State tuition rates for college. In addition, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive the benefit of paying less for fishing licenses. Examples of what this can mean: for 2005, an angling license for Oregonians is $24.75 for the year; for a Washingtonian who pays income taxes in Oregon, his/her angling license is $61.50--a 248- percent increase. The discrepancy in Idaho is even greater. For 2005, a combined hunting/fishing license for an Idaho resident is $30.50 and for a Washingtonian who is paying Idaho income taxes would be charged $181.50 for the same license--a 595-percent increase. And first and foremost, Washington residents employed in Oregon and paying income taxes are not afforded voting rights in Oregon, thereby being taxed without representation. The power for Congress to enact legislation to prohibit one State from assessing taxes on nonresidents working within that State exists in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Congress has exercised this authority in the past. The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 prohibits States from taxing the compensation of nonresident military personnel who are stationed in that State. In July of 1977, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, legislation prohibiting the States of Virginia and Maryland, or the District of Columbia, from imposing an income tax against Members of Congress who maintain homes in those jurisdictions. Additionally, with the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1990, Congress granted tax immunity to employees of interstate railway, aviation, and motor carriers from paying State income taxes to any State other than an employee's State of residence. It is time for Congress, once again, to utilize its authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the imposition of income taxes by States on nonresidents. It is my view that interstate trade in labor is important commerce that deserves to be treated fairly. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.