Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Does the Senator from Nevada have a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. The Senator from Nevada--I am happy to yield the floor to the Senator from Nevada.

Ms. CANTWELL. I want to accommodate the Senator from Nevada. I was proposing to accommodate and trade off recognition of the four Members who are present on the floor? Does the Senator have a question?

Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct. I will give my colleagues from Washington and South Carolina an opportunity to join in this debate and participate because I think it is very important that this issue receive the full attention of Members. As I said at the beginning of this discussion, I do not believe this is an issue--even though a lot of my colleagues would like to classify it as an issue that only affects Washington State, South Carolina, or Idaho perhaps with some impact on Oregon and maybe Georgia, or New York in its commercial facility. I have never thought of this nuclear waste issue as a geographic-specific debate. Our responsibility as a body is to make sure nuclear waste cleanup happens in a process that the science determines will not be with harm to humans or to the environment. We now have a proposal before us that science says will be harmful, that is not based on sound science, that has not met the test, nor has our approval. While I am willing to have this debate, I hope my colleagues will use this debate as an opportunity to understand our challenge on nuclear waste cleanup and the tremendous amount of resources that are spent by our Government on that cleanup and the efficiencies that need to happen to make that process go more smoothly than it has in the past. But I can guarantee to my colleagues that wanting that process to go more smoothly in the future, and wanting it to be more cost effective, does not simply mean coming up with a short-term proposal, a fix that is counter to what existing statute and law is. If we want to have that debate, let's go through the normal committees and have that debate, and let's have the scientists come in and discuss it with us, and let's not end up with a process where we are going to be battling in the courts. I don't think that does any of us any good. Certainly, for us in the State of Washington, with a 1-million-gallon plume heading toward the Columbia River, it doesn't do us any good. I hope my colleagues will use this opportunity to focus attention not just on the question at hand, of high-level radioactive waste, but I would say the consistency by which the States of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, South Carolina, and others have banded together in the last year or two in authorizing and appropriations language that has done a good job to make sure the processing of radioactive waste is completed. I remind my colleagues, this is the first time I think the Department of Energy has successfully picked off a State. At first the underlying language was actually blackmail: We are going to make this change and nuclear waste is going to be reclassified, and if you are going to agree with us, we will give you some money, and if you don't agree with us, we are not cleaning up your waste. That is blackmail. That is what the current language in the DOD authorizing bill is. It is blackmail. Now, after my colleagues have seen what ludicrous language that is, Senator Graham wants to offer an amendment that will not tie up the funds. But we still remain with the underlying problem, which is the Department of Energy is trying to reclassify highly radioactive waste as low-level ancillary waste and say it can be grouted, that is that cement and sand can be poured on it and somehow, leaving incidental amount of tank waste is a sufficient way to clean up tanks. I will continue to fight on this issue until Members understand the significant policy change that is before this body. I ask unanimous consent after the remarks of Senator Inhofe that Senators Murray, Allard, and Hollings be recognized, and that I immediately be recognized after them.

Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct.

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL. I simply want the issue to have the appropriate amount of debate and dialog. All of us will have the opportunity to vote up or down on any of the amendments anybody wants to offer to this section. But the question before us was, all of a sudden at 11:30 today, without notice, when we had been in negotiations on this language, to bring it to the floor, this Senator feels obligated to make sure this time period is used to bring committee members and colleagues up to speed about the contents of the underlying bill.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think there are several other people here.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the chairman again for his statement. I point out to him that the difference between authorizing for appropriations and oversight of policy, and what I am debating is that the committee's oversight over nuclear waste cleanup policy as set out in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. When that was passed in 1982 and moved through the legislative branch and made its way through the debates, it was debated in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and EPW Committee. As the parliamentarian referred to those committees, I am sure that the SASC, because of its nature of the appropriated funds, has some responsibilities. But I do not think that the SASC is the committee of jurisdiction for changing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. I do not think that is the primary responsibility of that committee. So, I don't know. I say to the Senator, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a great deal of respect for his willingness at all times in the most difficult of situations to try to have consideration of issues be as fair and balanced as possible, and to give Members their opportunity. I am happy to continue to discuss with him the nuances of this particular issue. But I have a feeling that if we had this Nuclear Waste Policy Act before us today and we asked the Parliamentarian--this change that is in your bill, under a separate act, under a separate stand-alone bill--it would not be referred to that committee. It would be referred jointly to those other committees and maybe to SASC in the authorizing of an appropriation, but not for the policy change.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for his question, but under rule XXV, the Armed Services Committee has jurisdiction over national security aspects of nuclear energy, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee has jurisdiction over nonmilitary development of nuclear energy, and the EPW Committee has jurisdiction over the nonmilitary environmental regulation and control of nuclear energy. Undoubtedly SASC has jurisdiction over the reprocessing that created the tanks to begin with because DOE was responsible for the national security, but I do not see how anyone could seriously argue how the waste, disposal, and cleanup of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act is a part of the national security aspect of the Senate Armed Services Committee's jurisdiction. While I am more than happy that the committee has used this authority to bring this issue up, I think the committee is doing an injustice to say to our colleagues that a change that is in contradiction to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act ought to be passed by the committee without hearing, without debate, without full scrutiny of public daylight. This provision would really contradict 30 years of law on the books when the agency promulgating that rule change lost a court battle basically telling it it does not have the authority to redefine high-level nuclear waste. I fully respect, because of all the committees that I work with, I know that the chairman of the Armed Services Committee always strives to be fair and balanced at his hearings. And there are difficult challenges that we have had over many sensitive subjects in the last several weeks. The chairman has gone way out of his way to make sure the continuity of that committee works well and that the rules and processes are followed. But I say to the chairman that if the Department of Energy is so sure about these statutory changes they are promulgating through his committee without debate, then they ought to be willing to have the hearings and have the debates with the other committees that have jurisdiction for the cleanup, not the national security efforts the Senator was responsible for as the chairman of that committee.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, take last month's number. Say we had an average of 300,000 jobs created each month for the next 6 months. At the end of this program in October we would still be at a deficit. Even with 300,000 jobs created, we would still have over 112,000 people who had not gotten a job. So the question is, What are we going to do for a stimulus in the meantime as we are going through this job creation exercise in America? Are we going to say these are the only programs we support, programs for the oil and gas industry, for synthetic fuels, for green bonds, for bourbon distributors, for horse racing, for archery manufacturers? Those are the things we will support and we will not support the American workers? I ask my colleagues to think about our priorities and support the Cantwell-Voinovich amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. The issue is this underlying bill has a lot of tax credits and programs to help corporate America. Many of them I support. But I think it is important for my colleagues to realize what is in this bill. As opposed to the cost of taking care of the unemployment in America, there is $9 billion in here for the oil and gas industry; $2.2 billion for the clean coal industry; $2.8 billion for synthetic fuel. Actually, this particular program is under investigation by two different agencies. There are $2 billion for green bonds, which I say and Taxpayers for Common Sense say could still inadvertently go to a Hooters Restaurant. These two programs alone would pay for the unemployment benefit program. We basically went ahead and authorized these in this legislation. I don't know where we found the money for those programs. Yet, we are taking money out of the unemployment insurance trust fund, a fund that is supposed to be paid into by employees, and somehow saying, out of the $13 billion that is there, we do not have enough money for working families who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, but, yes, we have money--$2.8 billion--for synthetic fuels, even though we are investigating whether the money should be spent there, and we have $2 billion for green bonds that could end up going to a Hooters Restaurant. Where are the priorities of my colleagues? Where are the priorities in passing this kind of legislation when we know that American men and women need our help and support? Like my colleagues, I know this economy will get better. I have actually helped create jobs in the private sector. It will recover. But that is not the debate. The debate is, we have terminated a program in December and we now have data and information that shows the economy has not picked up to the degree in the last several months to take care of that huge number of unemployed who have exhausted their benefits. While everyone is talking about whether the economy is better, executive salaries are up, corporate profits are up, but total jobs lost is the issue. We are in a better economic situation, but we are leaving the American worker behind. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. CANTWELL. I only have 5 minutes. I will be happy to yield after I finish speaking, if I have time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. Let me start off by correcting a few things my colleagues have said on the floor. This is a debate about 1.5 million people who have lost their jobs and have not been able to find work and have been without benefits. To be clear, the unemployment program at the Federal level does not exist today. It was terminated as of the 31st of December. This isn't a continuation of a program that has been in place for the last several months. It has not been in place. As it relates to the Clinton administration and the economic numbers, say we cut the program off in better economic times and worse economic times, the whole point of this debate is the fact the economy and job creation has not taken place at the level that would have employed the number of people who have lost their jobs starting with over 2.6 million people. While we have had some job growth, we have not totally recovered. While the Clinton administration cut off the program at a time of higher unemployment, they actually had net job growth. That is why they terminated the program. We are not in that same situation. In fact, it is no wonder Alan Greenspan basically, before a House committee, came to the same conclusion and said if you have a large number of exhaustees it makes sense to go ahead and use the program to take care of those exhaustees. So here is one of our chief economists saying, Yes, the Clinton administration did something different, and they did it differently because they had job creation and net job growth going on. We do not have net job growth going on. My colleague mentioned Alan Greenspan and the deficit and what we need to do to take care of the deficit moving forward. Alan Greenspan, who is also very concerned about the deficit, said exactly this. The number of exhaustees alone will tell you it is time for us to go ahead and take this program and take care of those 1.5 million exhaustees because of their large number. Let us talk about where we are going to spend money. I think that is the reason we are in this debate. Some of my colleagues said it is about the deficit. Let us take this bill, for example. Let's take the underlying bill and talk about what we are spending money on. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of my amendment at $5.8 billion. If the Senator from Oklahoma can get a larger number----

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to waive the relevant section of the Budget Act and ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. So the question is whether we are going to continue to make a priority these kinds of tax credits in this legislation and leave the American workers out in the cold. I urge my colleagues, let us do both. Let us help those who have been left behind and continue to try to create a more positive economy. I urge people to support the Cantwell-Voinovich amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this next amendment is the Cantwell- Voinovich amendment which will say when it comes to our economy and producing jobs, the priority of the Senate ought to be taking care of those individuals who lost their jobs and lost their benefits. This amendment is crystal clear. It only applies to people who have lost their benefits and are unemployed as of the enactment of this legislation, which means it only covers people who have lost their jobs and are unemployed. It is about whether we are going to say 1.5 million Americans are more a priority than simply passing this legislation with all the tax credits, all the incentives for various corporations in America, but leaving American workers out in the cold. Thirteen billion dollars of the unemployment insurance trust fund should be enough security to give back to workers who have paid into this account and through no fault of their own are unemployed. So while this institution today is going to make decisions----

Ms. CANTWELL. As I said, that is not the intent of the legislation. To make the Senator from Oklahoma comfortable, I am happy to consider whatever language he wants to clarify that point. This is not about someone who has gotten a job in the last 7 months; it is about the fact that we terminated this program in December and the fact that there are 1.5 million Americans who are without benefits. They are, basically, defaulting on mortgages, going into bankruptcy, not being able to take care of their own health insurance or the health care insurance of their family. It is about giving them access to a fund that was created for these very economic times and giving them support during these economic times. It is stimulus that, as I said, is just as worthy as the other programs--I would say more worthy than a lot of the programs in the underlying bill. I am happy to correct this perception by the Senator from Oklahoma and clarify it in any way so we can get this particular issue off the table.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to respond to the issues raised. One point is important to make. I am happy to modify my amendment if this would help clarify. This is not retroactive for someone who has gotten a job. If you got a job in March and you would have qualified for January and February unemployment, you do not get unemployment benefits. This only takes care of individuals who have lost their job and have not found a job. I am happy to modify the amendment. That is not the intent of the amendment. The intent is only to take care of people who are still unemployed.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004, along with my colleague Senator Murray, the senior Senator from Washington State. Earlier today, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve held a hearing regarding the outlook for the 2004 fire season. I join many of my colleagues, who are very concerned about what appears to be yet another year of devastating drought throughout the West, and the hazards this could pose in terms of increased fire risk and threats to public safety. However, we in Washington State recognize the importance of an issue that is often overlooked in discussions of fire preparedness. This is the topic of wildland firefighter safety, and it's an issue that we care deeply about because a horrible tragedy occurred in our state in July 2001, when four young Washington firefighters lost their lives at the Thirtymile Fire. I come to the floor to introduce this legislation today, because we cannot forget the lives that were lost--and the families that are still grieving--as a result of the Thirtymile tragedy. What's more, we cannot allow the Forest Service and our Federal firefighting agencies to repeat the mistakes that the agencies themselves admit resulted in these avoidable deaths. Unfortunately, the recently-issued findings of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)--stemming from the Cramer Fire that killed two Idaho firefighters just last summer--indicate to me that the lessons of Thirtymile are not being completely heeded. This is simply unacceptable. Many of my colleagues, particularly those from the West, are probably aware of the fact that every summer, we send thousands of our constituents--many of them brave young men and women, college students on summer break--into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands. These men and women serve our nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. According to the U.S. Forest Service, a total of 30 firefighters across this Nation perished in the line of duty just last year, during the 2003 fire season. These firefighters represented a mix of Federal and State employees, volunteers and independent contractors. And they lost their lives for an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting fires on our nation's public lands is an inherently dangerous business. But what we cannot and must not abide are the preventable deaths--losing firefighters because rules were broken, policies ignored and no one was held accountable. I have already mentioned the Thirtymile tragedy that pushed this issue to the fore in the State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21. Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened again. I'd like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way. I can think of no worse tragedy that a parent to confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of federal agencies. At that Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that led to unnecessary fatalities. Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who are preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't done nearly enough. In July 2003--two years after Thirtymile--two more firefighters perished, this time at the Cramer Fire within Idaho's Salmon-Challis National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed when the fire burned over an area where they were attempting to construct a landing spot for firefighting helicopters. Certainly some 28 others lost their lives fighting wildfires last year, and we must recognize the sacrifice and grief befalling their families. After the Thirtymile Fire, however, I told the Weavers and the Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings associated with the Cramer Fire simply boggle my mind. We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing Fire Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic safety rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at Cramer, where Heath and Allen lost their lives two years later. After the Thirtymile Fire, OSHA conducted an investigation and levied against the Forest Service fire citations for Serious and Willful violations of safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just this March OSHA concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA citations, for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations. Reading through the list of causal and contributing factors for Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the Thirtymile fire, my colleagues would be struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels between these lists and the factors cited in the investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado. It's been 10 years since those 14 firefighters lost their lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are being made over and over again. Let me repeat: This is not acceptable. The firefighters we send into harm's way this year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better. Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all of the incidents I've discussed. Frankly, I have believed since the Thirtymile tragedy that the Forest Service has on its hands a cultural problem. What can we do, from the legislative branch, to provide this agency with enough motivation to change? I believe the first step we can take is to equip ourselves with improved oversight tools, so these agencies know that Congress is paying attention. Today I'm introducing legislation--the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004--that would do just that. I believe this is a modest yet important proposal. It was already passed once by the Senate, as an amendment to last year's Healthy Forests legislation. However, I was disappointed that it was not included in the conference version of the bill. But it is absolutely clear to me--particularly in light of OSHA's review of the Cramer Fire--that these provisions are needed now more than ever. First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training. Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these funds. Second, this legislation will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated. The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues. Third, my bill would stipulate that Federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves--but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line. This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past two years--and notwithstanding the Clinton Administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 in 1998 to 300 this year--with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs--especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records. Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and State officials. Last summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. Among the contractor practices cited in the Seattle Times article: breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands--and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row. The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.'' Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while State government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.'' The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction--and this provision will bolster that momentum. And so, I hope my colleagues will support this simple legislation. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs. We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners--and to future wildland firefighters. The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004, along with my colleague Senator Murray, the senior Senator from Washington State. Earlier today, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which I serve held a hearing regarding the outlook for the 2004 fire season. I join many of my colleagues, who are very concerned about what appears to be yet another year of devastating drought throughout the West, and the hazards this could pose in terms of increased fire risk and threats to public safety. However, we in Washington State recognize the importance of an issue that is often overlooked in discussions of fire preparedness. This is the topic of wildland firefighter safety, and it's an issue that we care deeply about because a horrible tragedy occurred in our state in July 2001, when four young Washington firefighters lost their lives at the Thirtymile Fire. I come to the floor to introduce this legislation today, because we cannot forget the lives that were lost--and the families that are still grieving--as a result of the Thirtymile tragedy. What's more, we cannot allow the Forest Service and our Federal firefighting agencies to repeat the mistakes that the agencies themselves admit resulted in these avoidable deaths. Unfortunately, the recently-issued findings of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)--stemming from the Cramer Fire that killed two Idaho firefighters just last summer--indicate to me that the lessons of Thirtymile are not being completely heeded. This is simply unacceptable. Many of my colleagues, particularly those from the West, are probably aware of the fact that every summer, we send thousands of our constituents--many of them brave young men and women, college students on summer break--into harm's way to protect our Nation's rural communities and public lands. These men and women serve our nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. According to the U.S. Forest Service, a total of 30 firefighters across this Nation perished in the line of duty just last year, during the 2003 fire season. These firefighters represented a mix of Federal and State employees, volunteers and independent contractors. And they lost their lives for an array of reasons. We all realize that fighting fires on our nation's public lands is an inherently dangerous business. But what we cannot and must not abide are the preventable deaths--losing firefighters because rules were broken, policies ignored and no one was held accountable. I have already mentioned the Thirtymile tragedy that pushed this issue to the fore in the State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21. Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' At that time, I said that I believe we in Congress and management within the firefighting agencies have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile fire ever happened again. I'd like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished Ranking Member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters--put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way. I can think of no worse tragedy that a parent to confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of federal agencies. At that Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that led to unnecessary fatalities. Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and what I've heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of the Thirtymile families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who are preparing to battle blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I'm deeply saddened by the fact that it's clear we haven't done nearly enough. In July 2003--two years after Thirtymile--two more firefighters perished, this time at the Cramer Fire within Idaho's Salmon-Challis National Forest. Jeff Allen and Shane Heath were killed when the fire burned over an area where they were attempting to construct a landing spot for firefighting helicopters. Certainly some 28 others lost their lives fighting wildfires last year, and we must recognize the sacrifice and grief befalling their families. After the Thirtymile Fire, however, I told the Weavers and the Cravens, the families of Karen FitzPatrick and Jessica Johnson that I believed we owed it to their children to identify the causes and learn from the mistakes that were made in the Okanogan, to make wildland firefighting safer for those who would follow. That is why the findings associated with the Cramer Fire simply boggle my mind. We learned at Thirtymile that all ten of the agencies' Standing Fire Orders and many of the 18 Watch Out Situations--the most basic safety rules--were violated or disregarded. The same thing happened at Cramer, where Heath and Allen lost their lives two years later. After the Thirtymile Fire, OSHA conducted an investigation and levied against the Forest Service fire citations for Serious and Willful violations of safety rules. It was eerie, then, when just this March OSHA concluded its investigation of Cramer. The result: another five OSHA citations, for Serious, Willful and Repeat violations. Reading through the list of causal and contributing factors for Cramer and putting them next to those associated with the Thirtymile fire, my colleagues would be struck by the many disturbing similarities. Even more haunting are the parallels between these lists and the factors cited in the investigation of 1994's South Canyon Fire on Storm King Mountain in Colorado. It's been 10 years since those 14 firefighters lost their lives on Storm King Mountain--and yet, the same mistakes are being made over and over again. Let me repeat: This is not acceptable. The firefighters we send into harm's way this year--and the ones we've already lost--deserve better. Training, leadership and management problems have been cited in all of the incidents I've discussed. Frankly, I have believed since the Thirtymile tragedy that the Forest Service has on its hands a cultural problem. What can we do, from the legislative branch, to provide this agency with enough motivation to change? I believe the first step we can take is to equip ourselves with improved oversight tools, so these agencies know that Congress is paying attention. Today I'm introducing legislation--the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004--that would do just that. I believe this is a modest yet important proposal. It was already passed once by the Senate, as an amendment to last year's Healthy Forests legislation. However, I was disappointed that it was not included in the conference version of the bill. But it is absolutely clear to me--particularly in light of OSHA's review of the Cramer Fire--that these provisions are needed now more than ever. First, the Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training. Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these funds. Second, this legislation will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated. The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, Congress has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues. Third, my bill would stipulate that Federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves--but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line. This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past two years--and notwithstanding the Clinton Administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 in 1998 to 300 this year--with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs--especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records. Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and State officials. Last summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. Among the contractor practices cited in the Seattle Times article: breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands--and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row. The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.'' Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while State government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.'' The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction--and this provision will bolster that momentum. And so, I hope my colleagues will support this simple legislation. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs. We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners--and to future wildland firefighters. The Wildland Firefighter Safety Act of 2004 will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. Thank you.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.