Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of Senator Lautenberg's amendment to provide additional resources for the Superfund trust fund. I think my colleagues would all agree on the success of the Superfund Program. Since its inception in 1980, we have cleaned up 890 of the most hazardous toxic waste sites in communities around the country, including 44 in my home State of Washington. The Environmental Protection Agency's enforcement of the ``polluter-pays principle'' has helped clean up these sites. Unfortunately, since the Superfund fees expired in 1995, American taxpayers have picked up an increasingly large share of cleanup costs and today are bearing almost the entire burden of paying for sites abandoned by polluting corporations. That is why the amendment before us is really about fairness--it holds polluting industries accountable and protects public health and safety. I believe a recent editorial in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer makes the point well: Washington taxpayers paid only $7 million in 1995 for Superfund program costs. Next year, we will pay between $25 million and $30 million. Americans are now paying for the worst toxic waste sites in the country with our health and our tax dollars. This amendment will also help stem the ongoing erosion of funding for the Superfund Program. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, the overall Superfund appropriations have dropped 35 percent in real terms since 1993, even while highly contaminated hazardous waste sites continue to be added to the National Priorities List, the Environmental Protection Agency's list of the Nation's most contaminated sites. In fact, at the end of fiscal year 2002, the National Priorities List had 1,233 sites in various stages of cleanup. The Environmental Protection Agency's own Inspector General reported in January 2003 that the agency is facing Superfund shortfalls exceeding $174 million. That means the Bunker Hill site on the border of Washington and Idaho is only receiving $15 million this year, even though the Environmental Protection Agency estimated a need for $37.8 million. To put that in personal terms, I quote directly from the Inspector General's report: The impact of reduced funds for the Bunker Hill site is associated with risk to human health, particularly for young children and pregnant women, from lead contamination in a residential area. I think this quote, directly from the Environmental Protection Agency, tells us all how critical it is we support this amendment. Reinstating the fees means that we can shift costs away from overburdened taxpayers, protect Americans from exposure to dangerous toxic chemicals, and revitalize properties that blight our nation and often inhibit urban redevelopment. Waste sites still threaten more than 65 million Americans who live within 4 miles of a Superfund toxic waste site. And there are 40,000 other sites of concern that have not yet been listed on the National Priorities List. There was a very good reason for initiating a Superfund fee 23 years ago, and, until the remaining Superfund sites are cleaned up, we should reinstate and maintain this important environmental fee. I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President. I rise today to express my support for amendment No. 2647 that, just yesterday, passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. I also thank every one of my colleagues for their support for what I believe is one of the greatest mechanisms for job creation and industry innovation. The amendment, of course, extends the research and development tax credit for 2 years. The research tax credit, I believe, has demonstrated that it is a powerful incentive for companies to increase research spending. The tax credit lowers the cost of doing research in the United States, so it encourages companies to continue to make investments in critical R&D. And the bottom-line benefit is that research and development creates new jobs in the United States--something that is so vital right now for our Nation and for my State. The current R&D tax credit is set to expire on June 30, 2004. Many of my colleagues, here, know we play this annual game of saying the R&D tax credit is important, but then not renewing it on a permanent basis, thereby denying companies and organizations the certainty they need to make these investments. The major investments in nanotechnology and biotechnology, in software, and in the computer sciences take several years of investments. Without a planning horizon of at lest several years, companies just won't put the money into R&D. I am fully aware of the budget situation we are confronting, as Senator Hatch described yesterday. But, as my friend from Utah, stated, ``[i]ronically . . . a permanent credit costs no more than one that is regularly extended.'' And while I am a cosponsor of this amendment with a short term, 2-year extension because I fundamentally believe that the R&D tax credit is so imperative, I must also say that permanency of the tax credit remains a high priority for me. It is only in the permanency of the R&D tax credit that businesses can truly create a strategic business plan. As it stands, companies have to take into account the fact that Congress could allow the credit to lapse for a few months. That causes companies to hedge their bets, spending a little less on R&D, and our economy suffers as a result. By contract, permanency helps planning; and the sooner we make this permanent, the sooner companies can begin to enlarge and expand their research and development units, and the sooner their innovations will strengthen economic growth. Who has created jobs in the last decade? Who has stimulated our economy to move forward? It is a lot of companies that have invested in R&D. It is the Microsofts. It is the Amazons. It is the variety of biotechnology companies from my state and others making investments that have increased the productivity of their workforce, allowing them to hire new people as new products and services are delivered. The research credit creates jobs. More than 90 percent of the costs eligible for the credit are salaries and wages paid to researchers. The only way for a company to increase its credit is to increase its R&D payroll in the U.S. First authorized in 1982, the credit has been reauthorized eight times, with a gap from June 1995 to June 1996. As I mentioned, the current credit expires in June 2004. However, its effectiveness is limited because businesses cannot rely on it in their long-term planning, and most R&D projects are long-term. In order to provide stability and broaden the reach of this proven incentive, Congress needs to make the credit permanent. I cannot stress enough how important private investment in R&D is. R&D is the engine that brings us new medicines, new medical technologies, cleaner manufacturing technologies, advanced weapon systems and other tools in the war on terror. Furthermore, growth in our high tech economy depends on solid R&D, and there is no good reason to delay making the credit permanent. A permanent tax credit will go a long way to providing the planners and investors the certainty that they need. This amendment, having passed unanimously, shows the Senate's strong support for R&D. We have taken this one step forward; but let us not force these companies that serve as the engine for job creation to come back year after year for an extension of the R&D credit. Toward that end, I ask that we take this amendment one step further and make the research and development tax credit permanent.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today as a cosponsor of the amendment offered by Senators Campbell and Leahy, the Law Enforcement Safety Act. This legislation will take sensible steps to improve public safety by allowing trained active and retired law enforcement officers to carry their service weapons across State lines without needless bureaucratic hurdles. In my State of Washington, all law enforcement officers are permitted to carry concealed weapons, and many jurisdictions require officers to do so. In addition, all retired officers can obtain concealed weapons permits, and my State grants reciprocal privileges to any law enforcement officer visiting the State. This allows officers to continue to play a role in maintaining public safety wherever they may be. I believe that the successful example set by officers in my State shows that this legislation warrants the support of this body. I believe that this is solid policy and that extending a similar policy across the country will have beneficial public safety effects. I fully support aspects of this bill that are stronger than the current policy in my State: Requiring retired officers to maintain their firearms skills, and preserving local laws barring firearms in specific locations, like churches and schools. Police officers are entrusted by the public with an important responsibility. Since the events of September 11, we have placed new burdens of our Federal, local, and State officers. We have often done so without providing them the resources they need to do the job. This amendment is a step to correcting that oversight by allowing the people who are the most well-trained in how and when to use firearms to avoid outdated restrictions on carrying and traveling with firearms. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and to provide additional support to our law enforcement officers across the country. I look forward to working with the amendments sponsors to ensure its adoption.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for that information. I would like to continue until other of my colleagues from different regions of the country, which have been hit with high unemployment, come to the Chamber. I wish to focus on reality versus rhetoric. We have been promised 2.6 million jobs, but instead, we have seen a loss of 2.3 million. The rhetoric doesn't stand up. If the President is going to deny his own economic report and say we are not going to create 2.6 million jobs, then give American workers a hand--extend unemployment benefits as a lifeline to help stimulate their family incomes and help stimulate our national economy. I ask the President and the other side of the aisle to take a little bit of time and go back in history. I know not everybody on the other side of the aisle agrees with the policies of a Democratic administration juxtaposed to this administration, but let's look at what the last Bush administration did when we had a downturn of our economy and how President George H. W. Bush handled the situation. He had a similar problem when he came into office: the 1990s recession. In April of 1992, the President saw that we had tremendous job loss in the millions, but the economy had started to pick up again. The first President Bush saw that the economy had picked up 379,000 jobs. He could have stopped the unemployment benefit program right then and there. He could have said: My job is over; the economy is starting to grow again; I don't have to do anything else about this issue. But the President did not. The first President Bush extended unemployment benefits for an additional 9 months. He did it for 9 months--and it was a program with more weeks of benefits than the current program. It was 20 weeks instead of the 13 weeks we have for basic unemployment States. The first President Bush said: Yes, there was a little bit of job growth going on, but the negative impact of the recession means we should not stop Federal unemployment benefits. What has the second President Bush done? He has been faced with a similar recession. As we saw from the previous chart, we have lost 2.4 million jobs in the last 2 years and this President sees a little uptick in the economic numbers. He sees about 112,000 jobs created in January. And what does he say? That's it; that's it; no more Federal unemployment benefit program. No unemployment benefits. No weeks, no program. Basically, we have left the American workers out in the cold as it relates to this opportunity to sustain themselves and sustain our economy in great economically challenging times. I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to look at this history, to look at what the first Bush administration did under similar circumstances, to look at his results. They were very positive for the U.S. economy and for the U.S. worker. Analyze that juxtaposed to the positions we have taken in this body today, primarily because the other side of the aisle, a dozen times now, has refused us the right to have a vote on this issue. We are going to have that vote, and I hope my colleagues will stand up for the American worker and, most importantly, for the American economy that needs this stimulus. I see some of my colleagues have joined me in the Chamber. I say to the Senator from Maryland, who has been eloquent on these issues, I don't know how much time the Senator is seeking, but I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Ms. CANTWELL. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts 4 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. I am happy to answer the Senator's question. I would like to do so on your time, since you have a little more time left than I do.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator. As the Senator from Massachusetts said, the States have that money obligated. They are committed to use it. The issue about the Federal program is that the Federal program is to lay on top of the State program. The point about $15.4 billion being in the Federal trust fund is that $15.4 billion is continually added to by the American employer on behalf of them and the employee and that fund grows. So the amount at the Federal level can be dedicated to help with this Federal extension program.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how is the time being counted under the quorum call?

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will take a minute to report something to my colleagues. Hopefully this debate has stimulated some great thinking. As I pointed out, we can look at the history of the two different Bush administrations. The first Bush administration decided after creating 379,000 new jobs that it was going to extend unemployment benefits for 9 months--20 weeks for individuals who had already received State benefits could get a Federal benefit. This administration, having a similar recession in challenging economic times, only created 112,000 jobs in January and decided there would be no benefit program and no weeks for employees. I am not surprised to see the Washington Post headline ``Number of Mass Layoffs Rose Sharply in January''--``2,400 employers let go 50 or more people.'' That is the economic news facing the country. This administration and the other side of the aisle are not promising jobs or promising unemployment benefits. If someone wants to stand up and say we are going to have real job creation in 2004 and stand by the President's numbers, that is one thing. But if you are not promising either growth or economic assistance, then we have a serious problem. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will take 2 minutes to try to explain for my colleagues that while I have a great deal of respect for both my colleagues on the other side of the aisle as they argue their points, obviously, we all hope for a better economy; we all hope things are going to get better. I have some experience with these issues. I have been in the private sector myself and been part of an organization that was about job creation, been part of an industry that has great hope for the future. The question is whether we want to take stimulus out of the economy by denying people unemployment benefits. I will not debate the chairman of the Budget Committee about his budget point of order, but I will say most Americans know that they pay into a trust fund, through their employers, and those funds are available at the Federal level in a trust fund for this program. So you can call it what you want as it relates to the Budget Act; these dollars are in a trust fund, paid into by employers on behalf of employees, and those funds can only be used for this purpose. We can decide we do not want to use them because we think the economy is getting better. That is what the other side seems to say. Unfortunately, that is not what the administration is willing to own up to. Basically, it will not promise job growth after issuing a report saying there will be 2.6 million jobs. And the other side will not own up to the need for job growth or own up to helping unemployed workers. The last Republican administration took the same problem and had a different outcome. It stepped up its efforts. Even though unemployment was dropping, even though the rate of unemployment was, month by month by month, dropping, and even though employment or new job creation was happening, the first Bush administration said, we believe 9 more months of unemployment benefits is needed. I am only asking for 6 months today. I ask my colleagues to take that into consideration when they are thinking about all the economic assistance we could be giving. You want to say the tax cut is working. Great. Then ask the President to stick by his economic plan of 2.6 million jobs.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think the point is clear; and that is, this side of the aisle believes the American workers, who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own, should be given assistance until job creation is on the upswing in America so we can move further along this path and so that stimulus is still in the economy. That has been the result in the past two administrations. The last Bush administration believed in this, and now, somehow, we want to forget that economic success. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, while there were 58 votes--a majority voted for this amendment--we will come back to address this again and again because we are going to see job growth is not happening at the pace people believe. While we have postponed it today, thinking the UI trust fund is not being used as part of our deficit, the UI trust fund should go to these unemployed workers. We will be back to debate this issue again. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 2626 Withdrawn

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, how much time is allowed for debate on the amendment?

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President. If I can be notified when I have used 10 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleague Senator Murray--the Expanding and Making Mount Rainier National Park More Accessible Act. This bill authorizes a boundary expansion of Mount Rainier National Park to allow the National Park Service to acquire 800 acres of land from private landowners, on a willing seller basis. These lands are located near the Carbon River and, if acquired, they would be included in Mount Rainier National Park, one of America's greatest national parks. If enacted, the proposed expansion will improve access for visitors, allow for a new campsite to be built, and save taxpayers money that will no longer be needed to repair a frequently washed out road. While this legislation will make Mount Rainier National Park safer and more accessible for families and outdoor enthusiasts, it is important to note that this expansion will also promote the local economy. Outdoor recreation is more than an activity in the Northwest, it is also a key part of our economy. By improving access to the park, my bill will make it easier for visitors to enjoy the park and to purchase goods and services in nearby communities. This expansion will ensure continued access to the park because the northwest entrance road is continually washed out by seasonal fluctuations of the glacier-fed Carbon River. The river, which now flows at a higher elevation than the roadbed, has blocked visitors from accessing the National Park Service's Ipsut Creek campground and nearby hiking trails inside the park. The repairs to this road have proven both costly and short-lived and have strained the National Park Service's already limited maintenance budget. In the long run, the expansion will save taxpayers money because the road will not have to be maintained to current standards. If this bill is enacted, the National Park Service plans to provide a shuttle service to take visitors to the Carbon Glacier trailhead. That way, visitors will still be able to hike to the Carbon Glacier during day trips. If this bill is enacted, local conservation groups and the National Park Service will work to reach agreements with landowners in the proposed expansion area. I am pleased that the current landowners actively participated in the process and enthusiastically support this legislation. In fact, they are eager to sell their land to the National Park Service so that these lands will be permanently protected for the enjoyment of future generations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate as well as other members of the Washington state congressional delegation to ensure swift passage of this important legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleague Senator Murray--the Expanding and Making Mount Rainier National Park More Accessible Act. This bill authorizes a boundary expansion of Mount Rainier National Park to allow the National Park Service to acquire 800 acres of land from private landowners, on a willing seller basis. These lands are located near the Carbon River and, if acquired, they would be included in Mount Rainier National Park, one of America's greatest national parks. If enacted, the proposed expansion will improve access for visitors, allow for a new campsite to be built, and save taxpayers money that will no longer be needed to repair a frequently washed out road. While this legislation will make Mount Rainier National Park safer and more accessible for families and outdoor enthusiasts, it is important to note that this expansion will also promote the local economy. Outdoor recreation is more than an activity in the Northwest, it is also a key part of our economy. By improving access to the park, my bill will make it easier for visitors to enjoy the park and to purchase goods and services in nearby communities. This expansion will ensure continued access to the park because the northwest entrance road is continually washed out by seasonal fluctuations of the glacier-fed Carbon River. The river, which now flows at a higher elevation than the roadbed, has blocked visitors from accessing the National Park Service's Ipsut Creek campground and nearby hiking trails inside the park. The repairs to this road have proven both costly and short-lived and have strained the National Park Service's already limited maintenance budget. In the long run, the expansion will save taxpayers money because the road will not have to be maintained to current standards. If this bill is enacted, the National Park Service plans to provide a shuttle service to take visitors to the Carbon Glacier trailhead. That way, visitors will still be able to hike to the Carbon Glacier during day trips. If this bill is enacted, local conservation groups and the National Park Service will work to reach agreements with landowners in the proposed expansion area. I am pleased that the current landowners actively participated in the process and enthusiastically support this legislation. In fact, they are eager to sell their land to the National Park Service so that these lands will be permanently protected for the enjoyment of future generations. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate as well as other members of the Washington state congressional delegation to ensure swift passage of this important legislation.