Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I have very little time left, and I want to finish my statement. I thank my colleague. The time we are spending discussing our 98-percent confirmation rate could be used to address much more pressing issues. The majority is spending 30 hours to talk about four people who already have jobs. I think we should spend that time talking about the 3 million Americans who cannot find jobs.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the majority believes that the Senate should spend 30 hours discussing what the New York Times calls a manufactured crisis on judges. While I believe our time would be better spent helping laid-off workers by extending unemployment benefits, I am happy to talk about the confirmation of judges. I am happy to talk about how these lifetime appointments affect the rights and freedoms of every American, and I am happy to talk about our impressive record of confirming 98 percent of the judges this majority has brought to the Senate floor. I want to be clear that by spending 30 hours talking about four judges who already have jobs, we are not helping the 3 million Americans who do not have jobs. This marathon is the type of political grandstanding that, frankly, makes Americans scratch their heads and conclude that politicians just don't get it. We should be spending our time on the urgent needs facing our citizens in employment, health care, transportation, and completing our work on putting this Federal budget together. But the majority has decided that this is the most important issue we can discuss for 2 days, and they control the floor. I wish to talk about four things: The importance of the Senate in confirming judges, the progress we have made in the past 3 years, the success we have had in confirming judges in Washington State, and the job crisis that the majority doesn't want us to discuss. First, I want to put this discussion in context because the judges who serve on the Federal bench affect the lives and liberties of every American. These are lifetime appointments. This is not just a nomination to a commission or to an ambassadorship. This is a lifetime appointment for a Federal judge whose rulings over the next 30, 40, maybe more years, will have ramifications for every single American. As Senators, we are elected to serve our constituents. We are asked to confirm judges whose decisions can change U.S. history. They can shape the lives of Americans for generations to come. In addition, we expect Federal judges to provide the proper checks in our system of checks and balances that was outlined in the Constitution. Without it, our system does not function properly. It is our job to ensure that each nominee has sufficient experience to sit in judgment of our fellow citizens; that they will be fair to all of those who come before the court; that they will be evenhanded in administering judges; and that they will protect the rights and the liberties of all Americans. To determine if a nominee meets those standards, we have to explore their record, ask them questions, and weigh their responses. That is a tremendous responsibility and one that I take very seriously. In the Senate, we have made great progress in confirming the judges President Bush has nominated. Look at these figures. The Senate has confirmed 168 judicial nominees of President Bush to have come before the Senate. In 3 years, we have only stopped 4--4 people whose records raise the highest questions about their abilities to meet the standards of fairness that all Americans expect. Let me repeat that: 168 judicial nominees. That is a confirmation rate of 97.7 percent. We have confirmed 168 judges. That is more confirmations than during President Reagan's entire first term. So for this year, we have confirmed 168 judges. Today, 95 percent of the Federal judicial seats are filled. That is the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. There are now more Federal judges than ever before. When it comes to circuit court judges, we have confirmed 29. That is more appeals judges than Clinton, the first President Bush, or Reagan had by this point in their administrations. I have to point out that while the majority is complaining today about our 98-percent confirmation rate, it was a different story during the Clinton administration. Back then, Republicans used many different roadblocks to stop the confirmation of judges nominated by President Clinton. During Clinton's second term, 175 of his nominees were confirmed and 55 were blocked from ever getting votes. During those years, the majority used the committee process to ensure nominees they disagreed with never came to a vote. Fifty-five nominations sent over by President Clinton never received consideration. So I think the Senate has a pretty impressive record at this time of confirming judges. That is clear in a 98-percent confirmation rate, and 95 percent of the Federal judicial seats are filled today. It is the lowest number of vacancies in 13 years. I wish to talk for a minute about the process we use in Washington State to confirm judges. We have worked out a system to ensure Washington judges are nominated and confirmed even when different political parties hold Senate seats or control the White House. For many years, I have worked with a Republican Senator and a Democratic President to nominate and confirm Federal judges. Today, with a Republican President, I am working with my Democratic colleague from Washington State on a bipartisan process to recommend judicial candidates. We developed a bipartisan commission process to forward names to the White House, and it has worked very well. Both sides have equal representation on the commission, and the commission interviews and vets those candidates. It worked for Senator Gorton--a Republican--and I when we were forwarding names to President Clinton, and it is working for Senator Cantwell and I as we both recommend names to President Bush. I am proud that during President Bush's first 3 years, we have confirmed two excellent judges through this bipartisan commission process. We confirmed Ron Leighton, a distinguished trial lawyer in Tacoma who is now a U.S. district court judge for the Western District of Washington in Tacoma. We have confirmed Lonny Suko as a district court judge for the Eastern District of Washington State. He is a distinguished lawyer and U.S. magistrate judge who has earned the respect of so many in his work on some of eastern Washington's most difficult cases. Currently, we are in the process of getting a nomination hearing and confirmation of Magistrate Judge Ricardo Martinez for a vacancy on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. For over 5 years, he has served as a magistrate judge for the United States. Before that, he was a superior court judge for 8 years, and he was also a King County prosecutor for 10 years. Judge Martinez has the impressive credential of being named the first drug court judge in Washington State and worked tirelessly to ensure the success of this program which uses treatment services as an alternative to incarceration. I am looking forward to his hearing and confirmation fairly quickly. I am here to tell you that in Washington State, we are making real bipartisan progress in confirming judges. It is a process that I believe serves the people of Washington State well.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, how much time do I have?

Mrs. MURRAY. How much more time does the Senator need?

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, as we work to complete the Defense authorization bill, we are reminded of our obligation to the brave men and women of our military. They are protecting us at home and abroad. Congress must make sure they have the equipment and resources they need. Two years ago, our country was attacked. Suddenly, we have to project sustained military force around the world, and we had to protect our skies at home--and we had to do it quickly. But as our tanker fleet embarked on more than 30,000 air refueling missions, we found that our 43-year-old tanker fleet was outdated, too often down for repairs, and too expensive to maintain. This conference report provides the Air Force with the ability to begin recapitalizing this crucial fleet, with 100 new KC-767 air refueling tankers. These tankers will enable our air crews to do their jobs more effectively, more efficiently and more safely. Success has many authors, and I thank my colleagues, including: Chairman Warner and Senator Levin for their vigilance on this issue and their willingness to work with my Senate colleagues and me to ensure the Air Force gets these 100 tankers: Senators Stevens, Inouye, Cantwell, Roberts, Brownback and Conrad for their unwavering support for this program over the last 2 years; and, on the House side, I thank Congressmen Dicks, Larsen, and Murtha, as well as Chairman Hunter and Speaker Hastert. Fairchild Air Force Base outside of Spokane, Washington is home to the 92nd Air Refueling wing. I have been to Fairchild. I have visited with the families and talked with the brave men and women who fly these tankers. I know the difficult missions these crews handle for each of us every day. I promised to give them the best equipment we could, and today we're delivering on that promise. After 2 years of work, I am proud that this legislation provides the authority needed for the Air Force to enter into a contract for 100 KC- 767s. Section 135, of this conference report authorizes the Air Force to enter into a contract for the combined lease and purchase of 100 tanker aircraft under the terms and conditions of Section 8159 of the FY02 Defense Appropriations Act. This section specifically authorizes the Air Force to enter into one contract for 100 aircraft, 20 by lease and 80 by purchase, or if necessary, more than one contract for the same combination of aircraft. In their joint report language, the conferees agree that this section would--quote--``authorize the secretary to enter into a multiyear procurement program, using incremental funding'' for the 100 aircraft pilot program. This language means the multiyear procurement program authorized by Section 135 would allow the Air Force to make payments as agreed to in the contract. Furthermore, the language states that the Air Force would not be required to have the full budget authority required to purchase an aircraft in order to place an order for that aircraft under the contract. I would like to point out that Section 135 was written after extensive negotiations between the Congress and the Department of Defense. The agreement reached on Section 135 is based in part upon a letter sent on November 5, 2003 to the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee by the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Mr. Wolfowitz. The language included in Section 135 of this conference report represents a common understanding between the conferees, the Congress and the Administration on the agreement under which the Air Force will execute this 100 aircraft pilot program. In closing, I again thank my colleagues for their help in fulfilling the promise I made to the brave men and women of the 92nd Air Refueling Wing. Within 3 short years, Fairchild Air Force Base will be home to the first four of the 100 KC-767 air refueling tankers authorized in this bill. Fairchild will get another 16 of these state-of-the-art aircraft just 1 year later. I ask unanimous consent that the Wolfowitz letter be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, on this Veterans Day, I want to share a few ideas about the meaning this day holds for my family and for thousands of families throughout Washington State. Today is a day to honor the sacrifices that generations of Americans have made to defend our country and to support freedom throughout the world. It is a day to reflect on the courage and bravery of our soldiers. And it is made even more special as we think of all our military personnel who are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hostile environments. But it is much more than that. It is a day to make sure that we are living up to the promise we make to all veterans--a promise that President Lincoln described as: . . . to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow and his orphan. Today throughout Washington State, people are coming together to honor our veterans at places such as the Tahoma National Cemetery, the Washington Veterans Home, and in communities large and small. Washington State is home to almost 700,000 veterans, and every day I am honored to represent them in the United States Senate. Growing up, I saw firsthand the many ways that military service can affect both veterans and their families. My father served in World War II. He was among the first soldiers to land on Okinawa. He came home as a disabled veteran and was awarded the Purple Heart. I should note that, like many soldiers of his generation, my father did not talk about his experiences during the war. In fact, we only really learned about them by reading his journals after he passed away. And I think that experience offers a larger lesson about veterans in general. They are reluctant to call attention to their service, and they are reluctant to ask for help. That's why we have to publicly recognize their sacrifices and contributions. It is up to use to make sure that they get the recognition they have earned--and not just on Veterans Day. It is one of the reasons why a few years ago I worked to ensure that all veterans could get the military funeral honors. My father had them, and they meant a great deal to our family. I was proud to introduce legislation and to work with the VA and veterans service organizations to ensure that any family that requests military funeral honors can get them. In addition to my own family experiences, when I was a senior in college at Washington State University, I spent a semester interning at the Seattle Veterans Hospital, helping to treat young soldiers returning from Vietnam. They were my age at the time. I will never forget the sound of the door locking behind me after walking on to the hospital's psychiatric ward to spend the day with these heroes. While these combat veterans were my age, they had endured experiences most of us could never imagine. Today, as I see an administration that is considering closing veterans hospitals in Washington State--even as today's veterans have to wait 6 months just to see a doctor, and as the war in Iraq adds to the number of veterans who will need medical care--I get upset, and I fight with everything I have. Our veterans have already fought for our country, they should not have to fight to get the healthcare or benefits they were promised, so we've got to fight on their behalf. Today we must ask, Are we keeping our promise to America's veterans? Here are some facts to help us answer that question. Fact: Right now, 80,000 veterans are waiting 6 months or longer for an appointment at VA hospitals. Fact: For the past 2 years, an average of 14,000 veterans have been waiting more than 15 months for their ``expedited'' disability claims to be finalized. Fact: Veterans could face new fees and higher co-payments--just to get the healthcare they are already entitled to. Fact: Each year in Congress there is a debate over how much money we should spend on veterans' healthcare. Too often, our veterans lose out to other budget priorities. Fact: Disabled veterans pay a high penalty through what is called the ``Disabled Veterans Tax.'' They must give up a dollar of their pension for every dollar of disability pay they receive. Fact: The VA is looking to ``reconfigure'' veterans' health care and is now studying the closure of two VA facilities in Washington State. And finally, the war in Iraq--and the tremendous toll it is taking on our soliders--is increasing the number of veterans who will need medical care for years down the road. Those are all facts. To me, they show that we are coming up short in keeping our promise to America's veterans. So what can we do about it? Simply put, we need to make veterans services a priority once again. No. 1, to cut down on the long waits that veterans endure; to help expedite claims; and to avoid higher fees and co-payments. We need to increase funding for veterans services. To end the annual appropriations game, we should make VA healthcare funding mandatory. That is why I support the Veterans' Health Care Funding Guarantee Act. It would make veterans' healthcare an automatic priority for our Nation. The VFW, AMVETS, the Disabled American Veterans and many other veterans groups strongly support this bill. We must also make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs does not close critical medical facilities at a time when more are seeking VA healthcare. In addition, we must end the disabled veterans tax and ensure that veterans are not penalized just because they receive disability pay. I am proud to be a cosponsor of a plan that would authorize full payment of both retirement pay and disability compensation to half a million disabled military retirees. And unlike other proposals, our plan would take effect immediately, instead of over 10 years. And finally, we have to do right by today's veterans and by tomorrow's veterans. The brave men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today will need our help when they return home. How we treat them will send a signal to a generation of young people who may be considering military service. We have to keep our promise today and tomorrow. So while we are currently coming up short, I am going to keep pushing for the solutions that will truly serve our veterans. America's veterans have earned our respect, and they have earned the benefits they were promised when they signed up. They should not have to fight for the care and support they were promised. On this day--and every day that I am given the honor of representing them--I will stand up and fight for Washington's veterans and the freedom and security they have given us through their sacrifices in war and peace. I hope we keep our promise. Thank you, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add five additional minutes on each side.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Senator Kohl, in fiscal year 2003, Congress provided $150,000 to the Agriculture Research Service in Prosser, WA, to help with the development of a foundation block of certified ``clean'' rootstock. The rapid expansion of the Washington wine industry has raised concerns that new vineyards will use non-certified, diseased rootstock that could economically devastate the Washington wine industry. I recently learned that ARS did not dedicate all of the fiscal year 2003 funding to this project, but other research projects as well. The fiscal year 2004 Agriculture Appropriations bill provides $150,000 to ARS to continue this project. The intent of this project is clear and not subject to interpretation by ARS. I ask that the record reflect that this funding is to develop a wine grape foundation block. In addition, I ask that the conference report accompanying the agriculture bill include language directing ARS to allocate this funding in a manner consistent with congressional intent. Senator Kohl, do you agree with the intent of this project?

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you Senator Kohl for your support on this issue. This project is critical to the long-term health and viability of my State's wine grape growers and vintners.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, last week, we passed an amended version of H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forests Act. While this bill is not everything I hoped it would be, it is an improvement over what was proposed by the President and passed by the House. The devastating fires in California and throughout the West over the past few years have added great urgency to the need to remove dangerous fuel loads from many of our forests. We need to treat those hazards now, and this bill is really the only relevant legislation that can pass Congress and be signed into law by the President this year. That is why I voted for the bill on final passage. During the floor debate, I offered an amendment to strengthen the underlying bill's old-growth protections and I also voted for a number of other amendments. It is unfortunate that these amendments were not accepted because they would have reassured a greater portion of our citizens of the real intent of the legislation and would have made it more effective. We don't have the funding we need to remove all the dangerous fuel loads in our forests. We should have made more funding available and ensured more resources were focused on the wildland urban interface that presents the greatest risk to property and to the lives of our firefighters and citizens. While the underlying bill will increase authorization levels for fuel reduction activities, it does not guarantee this money will be made available. We should have passed Senator Bingaman's amendment that would have guaranteed the funding and stopped the raiding of fuel reduction accounts to pay for fire suppression. Likewise, the Senate bill is an improvement over the House legislation in directing at least 50 percent of the work be conducted in the wildland urban interface, but we should have strengthened this directive by passing Senator Boxer's amendment that would have raised wildland/urban interface work to 70 percent. Lastly, the underlying bill made an earnest attempt to provide some protection for old-growth stands in our national forests. Unfortunately, the bill leaves a couple of significant loopholes that, if abused by our forest managers, could threaten these ancient trees. That is why I offered an amendment to close these loopholes and better protect old-growth stands. Unfortunately, my amendment was defeated. Now that the Senate has spoken on the overall bill, the House should take up this legislation and pass it unaltered. The President should drop his opposition to the increased spending associated in the bill and urge its quick passage by the House. The President's opposition to increased spending presents a real and tangible risk to every community looking to treat forests surrounding their homes, schools, and businesses. If this bill is signed into law, the burden will shift to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to implement the programs in the most responsible and effective manner possible. Again, they will need to focus on protecting communities. It will be unacceptable to treat forest stands far from human population while any community's wildland/urban interface remains untreated. They need to focus on taking out of the forests the materials that truly threaten to generate catastrophic wildfires. We should not see large, fire resistant trees being removed from our forests under the guise of ``healthy forests.'' Any old-growth stands that are treated need to be treated in ways that protect their unique ecosystems. Finally, in a fiscally responsible manner, the agencies need to maximize the positive economic influence these fuel reduction projects can have on our rural economies. This means not only hiring local workers and companies to conduct the work, but also looking for opportunities to use the resulting material for other economic enterprises. The bill passed by the Senate has the potential to truly work in a manner nearly everyone can accept. Alteration by the House or poor implementation by the agencies will only threaten our wildfire endangered communities. I am committed to making this legislation work and stand ready to assist the communities in Washington State protect their families and homes.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I do not want to prolong this debate. I know the managers have been here all day long and they want to move to a vote on this amendment. Let me simply respond to my colleagues from the South and tell them that I understand insect infestation is a key concern in national and private forests. I know my colleagues from the South face significant insect and disease issues. We certainly face them in the Pacific Northwest. However, I strongly believe we do not need to abandon the old-growth protections in this bill. The bill already allows old-growth stands to be treated for hazardous conditions. They simply must be treated in a manner to protect the old-growth characteristics. Again, I know in most of the Nation 3 percent of the land is old growth. In the Pacific, it is 18 percent. It is a tremendous part of our heritage. It is something of which I think all of us should be very proud. We need to be careful we do not take steps this evening with this bill that undo the heritage most of us are very proud of in this country. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor. I know my colleague from Idaho wants to move forward with a vote on this matter.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I have an amendment, No. 2030, at the desk. I call that amendment up, please.

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as all of us know, the Senate right now is debating the Healthy Forests bill, and I believe we need to do more in this bill to help protect America's old-growth forests. Old-growth forests are stands of trees that have tremendous historic and cultural value. I think we need to work hard to clarify a few parts of this bill so that Federal agencies do not misinterpret congressional intent in protecting historic and ecologically important resources. This evening I am offering a perfecting amendment that will close two loopholes in this bill to ensure that our old-growth forests get the protection they deserve. Before I turn to the details of my amendment, I want to comment on the horrible devastation we are seeing in California from wildfires. Like all Americans, I have been watching the shocking news coverage. My thoughts and my prayers are with everyone who has been affected. My brother is a firefighter. So I appreciate the sacrifices that are made by these brave men and women. In my home State of Washington, we have been touched by terrible losses in recent years, including four young firefighters who died in the Thirtymile Fire on July 10, 2001, at Okanogan County. It is clear that we have to take smart, responsible steps in this bill to reduce the dangerous fuel loads in our forests. While it is too soon to draw any final conclusions about the fires in California, I think the fires highlight two challenges that ought to be a part of this debate. First, it is clear that we don't have enough money in the budget to address our firefighting and fire prevention needs. In fact, today the Forest Service is borrowing from its fuel reduction accounts to pay for firefighting operations; that is, robbing Peter to pay Paul. The money reserved for fuel reduction, if it is used wisely, helps to prevent fires in the first place. The current budget is inadequate, and we are going to pay a greater price down the road if we don't address the resource issue. Second, because the funds are limited, we have to do a better job of prioritizing how we spend the money that we do have. Specifically, we need to give a higher priority to those vulnerable lands in areas where wildlands and urban lands intersect. Those are spots where people and property are threatened. If we address the hazards there--and if we educate homeowners--we will have a bigger impact with our limited funds. I am looking for an aggressive plan to reduce the fuel loads in our forests, especially in the urban/wildland areas where people and property are endangered. Old-growth forests are important for many reasons. First of all, they represent ecosystems that are unique in nature. These forests are made up of a complex web of plants and animals, and climate and ecological conditions that are extremely different from what is found in younger or plantation forests. Certain animals and plants only live within these old-growth ecosystems. If we are going to maintain a diverse species, we have to protect their habitat. Old-growth forests also have the cleanest drinking water, they provide structures for good salmon habitat, and they mitigate the effects of flooding and global warming. Finally, these forests have great historic, recreational, and spiritual value which is important to all of us. Hiking through an old-growth forest is truly a remarkable experience. I invite any of my colleagues who have not had that kind of experience to come to my State or to another State with a lot of old growth and have that kind of experience. You will understand why those of us who speak out on this floor are so passionate about this issue. In fact, in our old-growth forests perhaps is the only place where you can feel transported back hundreds of years and see what the very first explorers saw when they encountered these cathedral forests. They are a part of our history, and we cannot afford to lose them. Unfortunately, we have already lost many of these unique lands. Old growth used to sweep across the Pacific Northwest, but recent studies estimate that old growth makes up between 10 and 18 percent of the lands in the Pacific Northwest and a mere 3 percent of lands nationwide. There is very little left today. We have to do all we can to ensure their survival. I want to recognize my colleagues from Oregon and California who made this bill better by including an old- growth section in title I. As a result, this bill is now much better than what the President and the House first proposed. But as I read the provisions, I saw two loopholes that we should close. First of all, the bill lets the Forest Service and the BLM treat dangerous forests, and it provides protection for old-growth stands. Old growth can still be treated. It just has to be treated in a way that protects its unique character. But if an area has insect infestations or is subject to trees being blown over, then the old-growth stands lose all of their protection. That is a big loophole. Any forest could be subject to strong winds that knock down trees. Any forest could experience insect infestation. Any forest could be subject to disease. Almost any forest could be damaged by an ice storm. It is just one of those things that happen. An old-growth forest could be drastically altered in ways that destroy its unique characteristic. The underlying bill has a massive loophole in it that threatens old- growth forests and subjects them to unrestrained thinning. My amendment would simply close that loophole by making those lands subject to old- growth protection. My amendment, importantly, allows treatment of old growth. I know that is a concern to other Senators here on the Senate floor. It still allows treatment of old growth. It still must protect characteristics that we all recognize as important. There is a second loophole that my amendment addresses. This bill has a fine directive to protect the integrity of old-growth stands. That is section 102, subparagraph (e)(2). I think we all can accept that standard. But I am concerned that it won't be carried out because it relies on forest management plans to be implemented. Here is the problem with that. If the forest has a management plan that is less than 11 years old, that plan will not need to be updated to meet the new standards. That is a big loophole. It could mean that forests with relatively recent management plans don't have to enact the protections we are calling for in the bill. Fortunately, there is an easy way to close that loophole. It involves just changing four words in the bill. My amendment does two things. First of all, it ensures that all hazardous fuel reduction projects on Federal lands will protect old-growth forests. Second, my amendment ensures that the old-growth standard in the bill applies to all Federal forests--not just those with older management plans. I thank all of my colleagues and their staff who have worked very hard on this legislation. The chairman and ranking members of the Energy Committee and the Agriculture Committee have been tireless on this bill. My western colleagues from Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and California have all been looking after the best interests of their States and their constituents. I thank them all, and I appreciate their consideration of my amendment. Old growth makes up just a fraction of our remaining public lands today. Many of these stands of trees are older than our Union. They are older than the settlement of the West. Some are older than Columbus' arrival in the New World. We would not be doing our duty here on the floor of the Senate if we didn't do everything we could to protect them for future generations. The amendment I am offering this evening will strengthen the protection in the underlying bill. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer and Senator Reid of Nevada be added as cosponsors.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to support the Climate Stewardship Act offered by Senators Lieberman and McCain and to cosponsor this aggressive plan to fight global warming. When President Bush walked away from the Kyoto Protocol negotiations in March 2001, he promised the American people he would come up with an alternative. More than 2 years later, the President has yet to deliver on his promise and we simply cannot wait any longer to start making progress. Here in the Senate we have a worthy plan that will cut greenhouse gas emissions. I want to applaud Senators Lieberman and McCain for presenting this meaningful and comprehensive plan. The McCain-Lieberman bill will require mandatory greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States from broad sectors of our economy. Rather than just aiming to limit industrial emissions--as other plans have done--this legislation will require emissions reductions from four major sectors of the economy: electric utilities; industrial plans; transportation; and large commercial facilities. These four sectors contribute 85 percent of the greenhouse gases produced in America. The McCain-Lieberman legislation relies on a national ``cap and trade'' system to reduce the air pollutants that contribute to climate change. Many of my colleagues are familiar with this approach. It was first used on a national scale to combat acid rain under Title IV of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. A cap and trade system establishes an overall total limit on emissions and then allows pollution sources to trade emissions allowances. It gives participants the flexibility of the marketplace, and it works. In fact, the acid rain program has reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants--and it has done it at less than a quarter of the predicted cost to industry. The McCain-Lieberman program will mandate that by 2010, the four sectors involved must reduce their emissions to 2000 levels. This is a meaningful and substantial reduction in emissions--a 5 percent reduction over the next 7 years. Some critics suggest that you can't ``grow the economy'' without emitting more greenhouse gases. We know that is not true. As the acid rain program proved, the cap and trade system works well. There were nay-sayers in 1990, and they were proven wrong. There are nay-sayers now, and we must prove them wrong again. This is also an opportunity for American companies to get ahead of trends that we know are coming. We know that the future of energy production lies in renewable energy and in alternatives to fossil fuels. I want American workers to lead the way, and I want American companies to share in the benefits. It is projected that over the next 20 years, $10-$20 trillion will be spent globally on new energy technologies. This is an enormous market, and much of the investment will take place outside of the U.S., in places such as China. I want American companies to sell the technologies that will be needed and used throughout the world. By passing this legislation, we will give American companies incentives to pursue new, clean energy technologies. And new technologies mean new jobs--especially compared to older energy sources. Today, for every 1 percent of market share, renewable energy technologies generate 12,500 jobs. By the same measure, the coal industry only generates 3,000 jobs. So this new technology holds a lot of promise in helping American companies and the American economy. Let me mention briefly the President's so-called clear skies plan. This administration's approach to global climate change has been to focus on reducing greenhouse gas intensity. That is the ratio of carbon emission to gross domestic product. What most people do not know is greenhouse intensity is already declining. As the economy modernizes, it naturally becomes more efficient in terms of energy use, so when the President says he wants to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent over the next 10 years with his Clear Skies Initiative, we should ask how much would the intensity decrease over the next 10 years without the Clear Skies Initiative. The answer is stunning and underscores how little this administration really wants to do to reverse global warming. According to CRS, greenhouse gas intensity is projected to fall by over 14 percent over the next 10 years under current environmental regulations. The President's proposal is nearly as weak as existing law. President Bush thinks the Federal Government's primary climate change goal should be to encourage voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas intensity by only 4 percent over the next decade. That is an utterly irresponsible approach to global warming. Our country should be taking an aggressive lead on reducing pollution. I am confident by using market-oriented strategies and new technologies, American ingenuity can find ways to reduce emissions without harming the economy. As I mentioned earlier, it will help our economy. The threat of global warming is real. The Pacific Northwest stands to lose much from climate change from increasing severe storms to rising sea levels to negative impacts on our forests, our coasts, our salmon, and our agriculture. Those resources define the quality of life where I live. In Washington State, increasing temperatures over the next decades could cause salmon in Puget Sound to migrate north. It could cause some crops to shift their natural habitats into Canada. The western governors understand this. In September, the governors of California, Oregon, and my home State of Washington got together to curb greenhouse gas emissions by promoting tougher emissions standards for new power plants. Governors and legislatures in the Northeast have taken similar measures. Soon the Nation will face a patchwork of regional regulations, making it costly and cumbersome for industries to comply. We in Congress need to take action since this White House has failed to act. It's time for a real policy to reduce our impacts on the global climate. We know that a clean environment contributes to the health and quality of life for every Washingtonian and for every American. The McCain-Lieberman bill is an important first step. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed a New York Times article that reported on the regional regulations.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I heard the objection from my colleague on the other side, and I would like to have him respond, if he would, as to when the Senate will consider this important piece of legislation. As I said in my remarks, I know we are dealing with an issue that is important to many States, but we have to provide some financial relief to millions of Americans as we approach the holiday season. I know my colleague understands the current extension ends on December 31. We are all working quickly to go home. I want to know if we can get a commitment that we will go to this bill so we can provide for these workers so they can be at home paying for their food and shelter that is so important to them. Can my colleague tell me when the Senate will consider this legislation?

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Madam President. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I know he is not in a position to speak for his leadership at this time. I would just say to all of my colleagues on the floor, it is critical we allow time as soon as possible. We can take as short as 10 or 15 minutes to get this passed. We have thousands of constituents across the country whose benefits are going to expire. If we wrap up this session and go home without passing this bill, we are going to leave them out in the cold without the ability to put food on the table, pay their rent, pay their mortgage, pay their college tuition bills, and really make it through a very difficult time. As we all know, the unemployment in this country has risen. We know more people today are unemployed than there were a year ago. The numbers are rising. The extension needs to be passed. I notify my colleagues I intend to continue to come to this floor on a daily basis to try to bring up this bill until we get a commitment from the Republicans to have a vote on this extension.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, in just a couple minutes I am going to offer a unanimous consent request to move to consideration of a bill to provide extended unemployment compensation benefits to displaced workers and to those who have exhausted their benefits. Today there are 9 million Americans who are unemployed, and the percentage of long-term unemployed is at a 20-year high. Our first priority in this Congress should really be to get America back to work. The current unemployment benefit extension, as I think all my colleagues know, expires at the end of December. Our economy is continuing to create only one job opening for every three unemployed Americans. So it is clear the current Federal program is inadequate to address the needs of out-of-work Americans in today's troubled economy. Another extension with no additional weeks of benefits will leave far too many of our workers and their families out in the cold. In my home State of Washington, there are 124,000 people who will exhaust their benefits by the end of the year. In addition, more than 1 million Americans have run out of unemployment benefits and remain without work. These Americans have been stretching their savings, refinancing their homes, moving in with other family, and depleting their retirement accounts. Three out of four workers are now running out of benefits before they find a job. In past recessions, we have included these workers in additional extensions. But so far Republicans have insisted on leaving them out. The Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act, which we are introducing, would help 4.6 million Americans make ends meet while they search for new jobs. I know we are dealing with a forest health issue today. It is extremely important to many Senators. But we have also thousands of Americans whose extensions are going to run out very shortly. Everyone is working very quickly here to wrap up all the bills. We all want to go home. I know when we go home, we want to make sure the people we go home to are not left out in the cold. I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 1708, a bill to provide for a 6-month extension of unemployment compensation, with additional weeks of benefits, as modified to strike title II and ensure that high unemployment States are not penalized for having high unemployment throughout the recession; that the Senate then proceed to its immediate consideration; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if I could have an additional minute.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, the events of the last Presidential election highlighted the importance of election reform and the need to replace antiquated and faulty voting machines. The Help America Vote Act, HAVA, was enacted last year to address these issues and to establish new minimum requirements that all States must meet in the conduct of Federal elections. My home State of Washington is struggling with implementing and paying for the requirements of HAVA due to our heavy reliance on vote-by-mail ballots. Last year, the bill included $1.5 billion for election reform, but that funding was not part of the subcommittee's initial allocation. The full committee provided this funding in addition to our subcommittee allocation. I am in agreement that the $1.5 billion is necessary and should be provided for election reform. But we do not have the available funding for that purpose in our bill, so it will be necessary to waive the Budget Act. During consideration of the budget resolution, I was not able to vote for election reform funding due to the competing needs of the agencies under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee. So I am comfortable with the amendment offered by Senator Dodd, which waives the Budget Act for this important purpose.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.