Patty Murray

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 ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, 6 years ago, Congress passed a farm bill that simply did not work for farmers in Washington State. It destroyed the safety net for Washington State wheat growers and did little for other farmers and ranchers in my State. Congress was forced to respond with four consecutive years of emergency payments. The farm bill before us is not intended to guarantee any Washington farmer a profit. It simply guarantees what it should guarantee: A safety net for our commodity producers when prices are low. That is a fair approach and one I believe the nation can and must support to ensure our long-term food security. I support this bill because it is a victory for our farmers and ranchers, the working poor and seniors, rural communities, and the environment. However, this new farm bill is not a perfect one for Washington State. The final bill strikes some provisions that I believe in very strongly, and it makes new policy choices that do not work for my State's producers. The Senate farm bill would have expanded Washington State exports by lifting the restriction that prohibits private financing of sales of food and medicine to Cuba. Unfortunately, the House leadership remains committed to an irrational, lose-lose policy toward Cuba. As a result, the Senate amendment died in conference. The House leadership was also responsible for defeating an amendment by Senator Baucus to provide emergency assistance to farmers and ranchers hurt by drought and other natural disasters. Farmers and ranchers throughout the West deserved better on this issue. I want to say how disappointed I am with the direction this bill takes on dairy policy. On many fronts, from exports to conservation, the bill will help all dairy producers. Unfortunately, the new dairy market loss payments strongly discriminate against West Coast dairy farmers. We had an opportunity to craft a dairy policy that worked for all producers nationwide. Instead, Congress again chose to create regional winners and losers. The Senate farm bill included my amendment to promote better cooperation between Native American tribes and the U.S. Forest Service. It also included an amendment sponsored by Senator Cantwell that would require the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Agriculture to investigate any future deaths of forest firefighters in the line of duty. The House refused to adopt these common-sense amendments. Finally, the Senate farm bill included my amendment that would allow communities to develop plans to bring high-speed access to rural areas. Unfortunately, the House conferees refused to accept it, and it is not included in the final bill. I look forward to working to pass my legislation to promote rural broadband development and to promote a stronger relationship between tribes and the Forest Service. I also look forward to revisting the other issues I mentioned above in future legislation. While I am disappointed with a number of decisions made by the conference committee, this new farm bill includes many of the priorities I identified prior to the debate. I am very pleased the farm bill restores food stamps for legal immigrants who have been in the United States for five years, and it restores food stamps for all children and disabled individuals regardless of how long they have been in the United States. The legal immigrant provision is the centerpiece of a new $6.4 billion investment in better nutrition policy. The bill will also streamline the Food Stamp Program and rationalize the quality control system. The conference bill helps Washington state recover salmon and improve conservation practices. The $17.1 billion in new conservation spending over the next ten years will promote water conservation, help dairy producers, ranchers, and farmers protect water quality and save farmland and open space from development through an expanded Farmland Protection Program. The bill enhances economic development in rural communities by providing $100 million in loans and loan guarantees to establish high- speed, high-quality broadband service. The bill also makes an important attempt to reduce the backlog of water and wastewater projects in rural areas. This new farm bill strengthens our Nation's energy security by investing $405 million in renewable energy and biodiesel development. The Senate bill included the first energy title ever included in a farm bill. Given the uncertain future of the energy bill passed by the Senate, I am pleased this section survived the conference negotiations. With respect to an issue I have worked for three years on, the farm bill sustains struggling apple growers through $94 million in direct assistance. With Senator Cantwell, I fought hard to include this funding, and I want to thank Senators Daschle and Harkin for their work in protecting this vital assistance in conference. The conference bill establishes a new safety net program for many eastern Washington farmers by creating marketing loans and loan deficiency payments for producers of dry peas, lentils, and small chickpeas. I was an early cosponsor of similar Senate legislation. Peas, lentils, and chickpeas are important rotational crops for our wheat growers, and they help to break disease cycles. The bill increases the Market Access Program to $200 million by 2006. In 1999, and again in 2001, I introduce legislation to enhance our agricultural trade promotion programs. The final bill supports my efforts to open and expand overseas markets for U.S. farm products. The farm bill mandates country-of-origin labeling for meat and fish, and fruits and vegetables. I believe this is a great idea for farmers and ranchers, but also for consumers. However, it is my understanding the conference report would not allow fish caught by U.S. fishermen in international waters to be labeled as produced in the United States. That is a concern to fishermen in my state who fish in international waters. In another win-win situation for farmers and consumers, the final bill increases purchases of fruits and vegetables for federal feeding programs. That means better nutrition for our young people and a larger market for our fruit and vegetable growers. Finally, I want to mention an amendment I authored that was included in the Senate bill and the final bill. My amendment authorizes emergency assistance for farmworkers when natural disasters strike. While Congress has often been slow to provide natural disaster assistance to farmers and ranchers, it has rarely provided meaningful assistance to farmworkers. We should not ignore these workers when disaster strikes. Implementing this farm bill will not be easy and there will be challenges along the way. I look forward to working with my farmer, ranchers, and rural communities to ensure that we implement this bill quickly and fairly.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from California yield for a unanimous consent request?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and amendment No. 3326 be called up, and that immediately after it is reported, it be laid aside and the Senate resume consideration of Senator Boxer's amendment No. 3311.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, the amendment that is now before us is a minor tax amendment that has been cosponsored by my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell. I know debate on this bill is limited, so I will be very brief. The tax provisions in this bill provide important tax credits to encourage the use of energy-efficient fuel cells that are 1 kilowatt or greater. I note that the tax credit applies only to fuel cells of 1 kilowatt or greater because there are a number of important fuel cell applications that are less than 1 kilowatt. It is important that we support the development of fuel cells that are less than 1 kilowatt. This amendment would expand the tax credit to include fuel cells that are greater than a half a kilowatt, but would keep the per kilowatt amount of the tax credit the same. Fuel cells that are between a half and 1 kilowatt are used as emission-free power supplies for a number of noteworthy applications, including cellular phone tower repeaters, home dialysis machines, railroad signaling and switching equipment, and recreational vehicle and camping powering equipment. Fuel cells are an emerging technology that hold the promise of helping to dramatically reduce world pollution. This promising technology could eventually shift our dependence from fuels like gasoline and diesel fuel to hydrogen. This important tax credit is intended to provide an incentive for research, develop, design, and use fuel cell technologies. We need to encourage the use of all types of fuel cells because as we gain more experience in the design and construction of fuel cells, it will allow the technology to advance to the point where it is competitive with other power sources. Some may say this amendment is too costly, but the current market for fuel cells is very small. We have estimated the cost of this amendment, over the period of the tax credit, is less than $3 million. That is a small price to pay for encouraging the development of this promising new technology. I urge my colleagues to support the development of a broader scope of fuel cell technology by supporting this amendment. I know Senator Cantwell from my State wanted to be present as well, but she is unavailable at this time. I understand this amendment has been accepted on both sides and would be willing to move quickly to a vote.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 3326.

Mrs. MURRAY. I yield to the Senator from Montana.

Mrs. MURRAY. All time is yielded back.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I want to speak for a moment about the Consumer Protection Amendments being offered by Senator Dayton and a number of co-sponsors, including myself. I want to thank all of my colleagues who have been working hard to improve this bill, particularly, my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, who has pushed to bring this amendment to a vote today. This consumer protection amendment improves this bill by providing a number of much needed consumer protections for electricity customers. I have spoken a number of times expressing my concern regarding enacting broad, far-reaching electricity de-regulation in these turbulent times. California's attempts to deregulate electricity markets were disastrous. We are all still trying to figure out what happened to Enron and thousands of retirement and saving accounts. Consumers in the Pacific Northwest are still paying for some of the aftereffects of these events. Repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which was enacted in 1935, without adding strong consumer protections would be irresponsible. In this energy bill, we are also contemplating major changes to the Publicly Utility Regulatory Policies Act and the Federal Power Act. When making these changes, it is essential that we make sure consumers do not suffer. A number of people have indicated that appropriate consumer protections are already in place in the underlying bill. I disagree. I think that additional consumer protections are necessary. This amendment strengthens the consumer protections by: ensuring electric holding company mergers advance the public interest; requiring FERC monitor and prevent market power abuses; ensuring market abuses are remedied; ensuring open access to utility holding company records by State Regulatory Commissions; and, requiring transparency in market transactions. These provisions will greatly improve the electricity title of this bill and I am proud to be a co-sponsor. I encourage my colleagues to also lend their support. Energy is very important to our quality of life, particularly in the Pacific Northwest. The electricity title of this bill continues to concern me and many in the Northwest. However, it is important that we all work together to develop an energy bill that will benefit the entire country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask for 3 additional minutes.

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today in opposition to cloture on these amendments. I want to say a few words about the energy bill in general, and then I want to explain my opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Our country needs a comprehensive energy policy, and certainly that policy needs to recognize the current importance of oil, gas, and coal exploration. But to ensure America's energy security for the future, it should support energy efficiency, conservation, clean and renewable energy sources, and it should help diversify our energy sources. Overall, I have to say I am disappointed in the direction in which this energy bill is heading because it has been diverted from achieving these important goals. I am disappointed because we had an opportunity to make progress on our long-term challenges. This bill started off in the right direction. Unfortunately, after many amendments, it is now a far different bill, and I believe it does not respond adequately to the challenges we face either in my home State of Washington or nationally. It focuses too heavily on coal and natural gas. It does too little to diversify our energy sources. It does not meaningfully raise fuel economy standards, and it does not protect electricity customers. In fact, it creates considerable uncertainty in electricity markets. It pursues electricity deregulation despite the hard lessons learned through our recent experiences in California and with Enron. It takes regulatory authority away from the States and gives it to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. And it does not do enough to encourage investments in our transmission systems. Overall, this energy bill reflects the way we have treated energy policy for decades. We have not addressed the long-term problems. Instead, we wait until there is a crisis, and then we are stuck at looking at bad, short-term fixes like drilling in ANWR. We have not dealt with our long-term dependence on oil. We have not invested enough in renewable energy. We have not diversified our energy resources, and we have not put enough financial incentives behind conservation. The responsible way to address our energy problems is to focus on the long-term solutions like reducing our need for oil and investing in clean and renewable energy sources. Unfortunately, much of this bill continues to largely endorse the past practices of short-term fixes that do not address many of the real long-term problems. Today we are being asked to damage a sensitive ecosystem and spoil one of our national treasures for the sake of oil production. We cannot drill our way out of energy problems. That is a fact. I ask my colleagues: At what point do we say ``enough is enough''? Today we are being asked to allow the President to authorize exploration in a critical wildlife refuge. Where will we and future generations be asked to drill tomorrow? To get out of these short-term traps, we need to invest in long-term solutions, such as diversifying our energy sources. This bill started with a strong renewable portfolio standard which would have diversified our energy sources. After many changes, however, these standards are now no better than the current pathways we have. To me, that is a missed opportunity. We should be doing more to diversify our energy sources. Currently, Washington State and the Pacific Northwest are very dependent on hydroelectric power to meet our energy needs. This dependence contributed to severe price spikes during last year's drought and California's disruption of the west coast energy market. I fear that in our rush to address last year's energy shortfall, we in Washington State are now becoming overreliant on natural gas. Diversifying our energy resources will help us prevent future price swings. Developing other resources like wind, biomass, solar, and geothermal energy will protect us from future shortages and will ensure our communities and economy they can continue to grow. However, rather than enacting a strong renewable portfolio standard, this bill will continue the failed strategy of digging more, burning more, and conserving less. I refer next to the electricity title in this energy bill. The Presiding Officer is from Washington State and she knows we have worked on and agreed to many amendments. However, electricity consumers in this underlying bill do not appear to be protected. I think we are moving too quickly to deregulate electricity markets and to create regional transmission organizations. From the California energy crisis to the collapse of Enron, the events of the last few years have highlighted the importance of moving slowly with electricity legislation. In Washington State, our regional transmission system has more than 40 major bottlenecks. There are many other parts of the Nation that also have major bottlenecks, and we need to fix them. We can build all the generation facilities we need but still not have power because the transmission capacity is inadequate. With all of the problems we are experiencing in our transmission systems, this is not the time to dramatically alter the way electricity markets are regulated and function. With regard to electricity legislation, I think we should proceed very cautiously. I will now turn to the debate over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I strongly oppose. For the record, I have heard from many residents of my State on this issue. They have called me, sent me letters, faxes, e-mails, and a clear majority oppose drilling in ANWR. I will vote against oil exploration in ANWR because the potential benefits do not outweigh the significant environmental impacts. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an important and unique national treasure. In fact, it is the only conservation system in North America that protects the complete spectrum of Arctic ecosystems. It is the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge, and it is a critical calving ground for a large herd of caribou, which are vital to many Native Americans in the Arctic. Energy exploration in ANWR would have a significant impact on this unique ecosystem. Further, development will not provide the benefits being advertised. The proponents of this measure argue that over the years energy exploration has become more environmentally friendly. While that may be true, there are still significant environmental impacts for this sensitive region. Exploration means a footprint for drilling, permanent roads, gravel pits, water wells, and airstrips. We recognize that our economy and lifestyle require significant energy resources, and we are facing some important energy questions. However, opening ANWR to oil and gas drilling is not the answer to our energy needs. Many people are incorrectly stating the exploration of ANWR will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. As a nation, the only way to become less dependent on foreign oil is to become less dependent on oil overall. The oil reserves in ANWR--in fact, the oil reserves in the entire United States--are not enough to significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There are four ways to really reduce our need for foreign oil. First, we can increase the fuel economy of our automobiles and light trucks. Higher fuel economy standards will reduce air pollution, reduce carbon dioxide emissions, save consumers significant fuel costs, and reduce our national trade deficit. In addition, cars made in the United States will be more marketable overseas if they achieve better fuel economy standards. Last month, many of us in the Senate tried to raise CAFE standards, but our efforts were defeated. A second way to reduce our need for foreign oil is to expand the use of domestically produced renewable and alternative fuels. That will reduce emissions of toxic pollutants, create jobs in the United States, and reduce our trade deficit. Third, we can invest in emerging technologies such as fuel cells and solar electric cars. The United States has always led the world in emerging technologies, and this should not be any different. Fourth, we can also increase the energy efficiency of our office buildings and our homes. These four strategies will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and protect one of our Nation's most precious treasures. The proponents of drilling in ANWR have argued it will help our national security, and I want to comment on that. Back in 1995, the same proponents of drilling in ANWR fought to lift the ban on exporting North Slope oil. Prior to 1995, oil produced on American soil, on the North Slope of Alaska, was, by law, headed for domestic markets. This export ban had been in effect for over 20 years. In 1995, some Members worked to lift that ban. On the other hand, I helped lead a bipartisan filibuster, with Mr. Hatfield, a great Senator from the State of Oregon, to keep the export ban in place because it served our Nation's interest. Since that debate first took place, I have become even more convinced that sending our oil to overseas markets is the wrong policy for our country.

Mrs. MURRAY. It is recognized that gasoline prices in west coast States are frequently among the highest in the Nation. It is estimated that since 1995 more than 90 million barrels of Alaskan oil have been exported overseas. Approximately half of that oil went to Korea, a quarter of it went to Japan, and the remaining went to China and Taiwan. I would respectfully suggest to the administration and the proponents of drilling in ANWR that if this debate were really about providing Americans with our own oil or about denying Saddam Hussein the means to develop his evil plans, here in the Senate we would be considering reimposing the export ban. The administration has been silent on reimposing that ban, the House has been silent on reimposing the ban, and I doubt the Senate will move on it either. Now I suspect that someone from the other side is going to stand up and say that the House-passed ANWR bill precludes the exportation of oil from ANWR and that the pending amendment limits the exportation of ANWR oil except to our friends in Israel. But it will be easy for proponents to do an end run around those provisions. First, the export ban would have to survive in conference. Even if it survives, oil companies will still be allowed to export more of the oil they drill from other parts of Alaska where the ban does not exist. The proponents will say there have not been any recent exports of North Slope oil. The fact is that as soon as the economics line up, we will add to the 90 million barrels already sent overseas. Let us remember that the amount of oil in ANWR is too small to significantly improve our current energy problems, and, further, the oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years. Exploring and drilling for oil and gas in ANWR is not forward thinking. It is a 19th century solution to a 21st century problem. For all of these reasons, I oppose energy exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I continue to have strong concerns about the energy bill as it is currently written. I yield back my time.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask unanimous consent that Christopher Jackson, a fellow in my office, be granted the privilege of the floor for the duration of the debate on the energy bill, S. 517.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support for Senator Craig's amendment to strip the electricity title from the energy bill. I believe that addressing electricity in major legislation, at this time, would not be good for the Nation. The electricity title does not protect consumers the way it should. We have not fully evaluated the effects of this bill on energy consumers, particularly small consumers. I am uncomfortable with the direction of the electricity title in moving authority away from State regulators to the FERC. Last year, the west went through a terrible electricity crisis which consumers are still paying for and workers still remain out of work. Also, in this past year we saw the collapse of Enron. We are still trying to fully understand the causes and effects of these two events. Hearings are occurring and legal proceedings are ongoing. House and Senate committees as well as numerous Federal and local government agencies are still trying to find out what happened with Enron and why. Many people lost their jobs and many more people lost their savings and retirement accounts. I do not believe we should move forward on major electricity market restructuring legislation before we completely understand what happened. Enacting broad, far reaching electricity market restructuring legislation before we understand what occurred would be a big mistake. FERC has been forcing the development of Regional Transmission Organizations around the country in recent years. I have spoken with Chairman Wood and the other commissioners about my concern that their vision of RTOs may not fit with the structure of the Northwest electricity operations and market. As I have stated earlier FERC is already exercising its broad authority and the national electricity market is rapidly changing. Enron, a major electricity market participant, collapsed late last year. We are still trying to sort out what occurred. In the Pacific Northwest, energy isn't just a commodity. It is a resource that affects everything from our economy to our air, our water, agriculture, salmon recovery, and our quality of life. We should not make the same mistake California made, by restructuring the electricity markets, before all the issues have been thoroughly explored and resolved. Nearly everything I am hearing from people in my State is that they do not like this electricity title. They do not feel it is in their best interests. They are concerned about the direction FERC will take. I am also concerned that all market participants have not had an opportunity to review this legislation and have not had an opportunity to provide meaningful input. We need to make sure the legislation is thoroughly reviewed and discussed before we enact major legislation. This is a $200 billion industry. If bad legislation is passed, the consequences will be significant. The amendment is not perfect. I am unhappy to see the good provisions of the electricity title removed. I am particularly unhappy that the amendment does not promote renewable and diverse electricity sources. However, Senator Craig's amendment is preferable to the existing provisions in the electricity title.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I rise to express my regret that the subcommittee will soon be losing one of the most treasured members of its staff. Wally Burnett, our minority clerk, will be moving on to other opportunities at the end of this week. I know that I speak for all members of the subcommittee in wishing him well and thanking him for his fine service. Wally Burnett brought a wealth of experience to the subcommittee staff given his prior experience as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Budget and Programs at the Department of Transportation during the administration of President George H. Bush. More importantly, Wally brought to his position a strong sense of fairness, decency, and a desire to do the right thing. This trait could be seen across all of the Transportation bills that Chairman Stevens and Chairman Shelby ushered through the Senate. While Wally always demonstrated a strong sense of duty to the entire Nation, Wally never forgot that he is an Alaskan. And while Wally could not always be depended upon to wear a jacket to subcommittee and full committee meetings, he could be depended upon to provide his most expert views in an informed and balanced manner. I will always be grateful for the many courtesies that Wally demonstrated toward me, whether I was serving as a junior minority member of the subcommittee or as subcommittee chairman. As Wally leaves his position in the Senate, I wish him the best of luck in his new endeavor. I also express my hope that his tirelessly patient wife, Kristin, and his children, Tucker and Mattern, will finally see more of him.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to a distinguished elder of the Makah Indian Tribe in Washington state, Ms. Ruth E. Claplanhoo, whose 100th birthday was March 15, 2002. Ms. Claplanhoo was born on March 15, 1902 in Neah Bay, Washington, where she still resides. Throughout her life, she has made many meaningful contributions to the Makah Tribe and to the community by selflessly serving others. Through her service, she has demonstrated her strong commitment to family, her cultural identity, and education. An experienced tribal elder, Ms. Claplanhoo has shared her knowledge of Makah culture with many other people. At an early age she learned the art of basket weaving, which she used to supplement her family's income during the Depression. Her basket weaving skills are so highly regarded that she once traveled to the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C. to demonstrate her gift. Ms. Claplanhoo is also fluent in the Makah language. During the 1960s she taught the language to students at the Neah Bay School. Many of these students still continue the tradition of the Makah language passed on to them by Ms. Claplanhoo. In addition to teaching, Ms. Claplanhoo worked continuously in other ways to help young people succeed and prosper. While raising her own family, Ms. Claplanhoo also raised many foster children, whom she still cherishes as her own. As the last of the elders who can remember taking a dugout canoe to the harvest fields, Ms. Claplanhoo continues to preserve the Makah culture by sharing her knowledge of tribal history and language with the Makah Museum. It is with tremendous respect and appreciation that I send Ruth Claplanhoo my best wishes and congratulations for a century of service to her family, community and country.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from the State of Washington to impress on this body just how important elements of this legislation are to the workers in the Pacific Northwest and the Nation. As my colleagues know, Washington and Oregon have the highest unemployment rates in the Nation right now. The economy of the Northwest has been struggling for some time and September 11 only made things worse. Last year, Boeing, Washington's largest employer, announced they would be cutting 30,000 jobs within a year. Most of those jobs would be out of Washington State. To date, 10,000 dedicated Boeing workers have been handed their pink slips. That number doesn't include the thousands of jobs that are being lost by those dependent on Boeing. Washington State is also a high-tech dependent State. The downturn in that sector has left many in the Northwest without a job. These massive lay-offs, uncertainty in the economy, and fear of another terrorist attack have crippled the economies of the Northwest. We are expecting that the layoffs may reach 40 to 65,000 by the end of this year. So the importance of the legislation is paramount--but the devil's in the details--and so we have worked to make sure that the language passed by the House will provide the maximum stimulus possible to workers throughout this Nation. My colleague, Senator Cantwell, has been diligent in monitoring this legislation and we have worked in tandem to ensure that States in such great need do not have their support decreased because those States have proactively made efforts to provide extended benefits to workers in advance of the passage of this legislation. I understand that the majority leader has agreed to engage in a colloquy on this matter with myself and Senator Cantwell so that we may clarify that the legislation will, in fact, have it's intended stimulative impact on our State. At this time, I yield back to the majority leader and look forward to his response.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of this amendment. I take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, for his leadership, his perseverance, and his tremendous work on the issue of pipeline safety. As he said, many of us became aware of this issue on June 10, 1999, when a gasoline pipeline ruptured in my home State of Washington, killing three young people and really shattering our sense of security. The Senator from Arizona was tremendous in his work with us as we brought that family here to Washington, DC. As he stated, the community, the mayor, so many people came here. His commitment to follow through with hearings and legislation, and to pass it out of the Senate, has just been really noted and respected in the State of Washington. And like he, I have difficulty standing here and speaking to those families today and telling them the House has still not acted, which is why we are on the floor of the Senate during the energy debate, once again, passing this legislation. As I said, when that tragedy happened, I discovered that there were inadequate laws, insufficient oversight and inspection, and a real lack of public awareness about the dangers of these pipelines. So I began to work on a national effort to raise pipeline safety standards. I testified before Congress, and I introduced the first pipeline safety bill in the 106th Congress. As the Senator from Arizona said, we passed legislation in the Senate in September of 2000, and again in February of 2001; and those bills passed without dissent, on a bipartisan basis, with leadership from both sides. I am proud to have worked with several Senators, including Senators Hollings, Inouye, Breaux, Wyden, Brownback, Bingaman, Domenici, Corzine, Torricelli, and my colleague, Senator Cantwell, in this Congress, and my colleague in the previous Congress, Senator Gorton. But, again, I especially thank Senator McCain for his work on pipeline safety. I have to say that without his attention to this issue over the last several years, I really doubt we would have accomplished what we have so far. I know that all of the advocates and I appreciate Senator McCain's leadership on this issue, and I am looking forward to continuing to work with him on this and many other critical safety issues before us. The bill that the Senate passed was the strongest pipeline safety bill ever passed by either body of Congress. It improves the qualification and training of pipeline personnel. It improves pipeline inspections and prevention practices. It expands the public's right to know. It raises the penalties for safety violators. It increases the States' ability to expand their safety activities. It invests in new technology to improve pipeline safety. It provides whistle-blower protection. It increases funding to improve pipeline safety. And it recognizes State citizen advisory committees. Despite the Senate's quick, measured, and deliberate work on this issue, as I stated, and as the Senator from Arizona said, the House of Representatives has blocked progress on this initiative. A couple of weeks ago, the House finally held a hearing on pipeline safety; and that was the first one that was held in 2 years on this issue. I understand they intend to move to a markup very soon, and that is encouraging. I am also encouraged that House Members from the Washington delegation, especially Representative Rick Larsen, are working really hard to make progress on this issue. I have to say, unfortunately, that the bill they intend to mark up excludes many of the important safety measures we put into the Senate bill, including strong inspection and testing requirements and adequate operator qualification standards. So overall I remain skeptical that the House will eventually pass a comprehensive bill, and that is why I am especially pleased that Senator McCain has introduced this amendment. I am here to support that effort. The amendment before us is nearly identical to the bill that has passed the Senate unanimously 2 years in a row. We did, however, make a needed change for national security purposes. September 11 has shown us that our transportation infrastructure is vulnerable to attack by terrorists, so we included a provision that would give the Secretary of Transportation the discretion to withhold public information about pipelines if the Secretary believed it would compromise national security. The standard would be the same as the current one used under the Freedom of Information Act. I am very proud to cosponsor this amendment. We all know if we want meaningful legislation to move on to the President, it will have to be attached to a piece of legislation such as the energy bill. The history of this legislation in the House requires that we proceed in this manner. In addition to working on this bill, I am also using my position as chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee to keep the pressure up and to secure the funding we need to hire inspectors, to enforce safety regulations, and to support the States with their efforts. I have held several hearings in Washington, DC, and I have questioned the Transportation Secretary and others about our progress on pipeline safety. I have met with the new head of the office that oversees pipeline safety at the Department of Transportation, and I told her exactly what I expect the department to do to improve pipeline safety. I have not hesitated to push the department to issue new pipeline safety rules and regulations. In my position as chair of the Senate Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, I worked to pass a bill that provides record funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety. Overall it provides more than $58 million for that office. That is $11 million more than the fiscal year 2001 funding level. That budget included funding for 26 new staff positions, from safety inspectors to researchers. OPS requested those positions, and my bill fully funds those new hires. Finally, it provides needed resources within OPS for critical testing, safety programs, and R&D. I plan to continue to work in the Appropriations Committee to make sure the funding is there to do the adequate testing and oversight of our pipeline infrastructure. When it comes to pipeline safety, we have taken a major step forward, especially in funding, but we still have to raise the standards nationally with legislation. I urge my colleagues to support our efforts to move this critical legislation forward to the President for his signature. From Carlsbad, NM, to Bellingham, WA, communities across this country are counting on us to protect them. I yield the floor.

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

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

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues in wishing the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kennedy, a very happy birthday. I grew up in a small town 3,000 miles away from here, a town of 1,000 people, from a family of 9. We did not have very much. Macaroni and cheese was standard fare for my family. Times were very difficult. My father was disabled. My mother had to work and raise seven kids and care for my father. We went to church every Sunday. It didn't seem as if there was a lot of hope. But there was one word of hope in my home, growing up in Bothell, WA, 3,000 miles away from here. That word for hope was ``Kennedy''--hope for all of us. There was an individual 3,000 miles away in a town only on a map in our sixth-grade text book, Washington, DC. This man stood up and fought for the things my family needed so badly--whether welfare reform assistance for my mother when she had to go back to work, whether an education for all seven of us kids as we went through school, whether it was my ability and my six brothers' and sisters' ability to go on and get a college degree because of student loans and grants. There was a man, an individual fighting for us, even though he never knew us, and I certainly never thought I would meet him. But his word was magic. His name was magic in my house. The name was Kennedy. We knew there was a compassionate advocate for us, every single day, speaking out for the needs of a family many miles away. It is an honor and a privilege for me to be in this Senate, where I never thought I would be, and to have watched him for the last 9 years fight for those same people to make sure they have a good education, that they have prescription drug coverage, that their voice is not lost, that they have employment insurance when they do not have a job, that they have a voice in a town far away from many cities in this great country. It is an honor indeed to serve here with this man and to know that he advocates for many people who can never afford to travel this far away to speak for themselves. Senator Kennedy, happy 70th birthday season, and many more. Thank you.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Schumer/Wyden amendment. The 2000 election clearly illustrated that there are significant flaws in our election system. In many places our systems of voting are antiquated and people are being disenfranchised. The bill we have before us seeks to correct those problems. It improves voting systems, provides a mean for provisional voting, cuts down on voter fraud, and provides grants to States so they can improve their methods of voting. The bill is not perfect. During consideration of this bill, I had worked with my colleagues on both sides to make sure that the intent of this reform bill is realized. We want fewer people turned away from the polls, and we want to bring our states' election systems into the 21st century. In my home State of Washington, 69-percent of votes in last November's election were cast by mail. Every election that percentage increases, and those numbers are larger for new voters. In the state of Oregon, by law every voter casts their ballot by mail. This method has made it much easier for those who lack adequate transportation, or are elderly, or disabled or are single mothers to vote. Previously disenfranchised voters now can exercise their most important civic city because of vote by mail. This legislation has several provisions that make the vote by mail process more difficult and in some cases could kill this method of voting. Two weeks ago, I worked with Senators Cantwell, Dodd, McConnell, Wyden, and others to perfect a provision in the bill that would have placed an undo burden on jurisdictions utilizing vote by mail. I thank those Senators who worked on that amendment. There is a remaining obstacle to mail-in balloting in this bill that requires first-time voters to show some identification prior to voting. Many voters don't have access to a polling place because they lack transportation, they are working too hard to provide for their families or are elderly or disabled. The ability to vote by mail gives them the opportunity to participate in our democracy. These are the voters we cannot abandon as we address some of the obvious deficiencies in our nation's current electoral system. The provision in the underlying bill places new and cumbersome hurdles on these types of voters and could potentially displace many new voters who want to get involved in the election process but could not without vote by mail. I agree with many Senators that we must cut down on voter fraud and this bill does that. In Washington, we run clean elections. We have had some very close races, and the integrity of the system has only been enhanced by the way the State has conducted those elections and the professionalism of the individuals involved. I strongly support the Schumer/Wyden amendment. Simply, this amendment would allow States like Washington and Oregon, who have significant numbers of mail-in voters, to create a signature verification system where signatures are matched against their registration. This is a common sense approach that will insure that those that vote by mail don't have to go through overly burdensome hurdles in exercising their civic duty. If we are unable to adopt this amendment, systems like those in Oregon and Washington could become unworkable and many new voters would find themselves without a say in the election of their public officials. That would be an unacceptable result to this Senator. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support for the farm bill the Senate passed yesterday. I want to commend Senator Harkin for this bill. Through his leadership, the Senate has passed a Farm Bill that will establish a better economic safety net for many farmers, bolster conservation efforts, improve nutrition and food security for our poorest citizens, and encourage new opportunities in rural communities. The bill also makes critical investments in agricultural trade and research. I will talk about the long-term policy changes in a moment, but I want to mention a critical amendment sponsored by Senator Baucus. The Baucus amendment provides assistance to farmers and ranchers who have been hard hit by drought and other weather events in the last year. I worked with Senator Cantwell to include $100 million in market loss assistance for apple growers in the amendment. I am very pleased the Senate voted 69-31 in favor of the amendment, and I will work to keep it in the final bill. This Farm Bill passed by the Senate today will restore an effective safety net for many of our Nation's farmers. For the last several years, I have heard concerns from farmers in Washington State who grow wheat, barley, dry peas, lentils and chickpeas. They believe, as I do, that the 1996 Farm Bill failed to meet the needs of producers and rural communities. The strongest proponents of the 1996 Farm Bill argued that if we gave producers more flexibility, created the best agricultural research system in the world, and opened foreign markets, our farmers would thrive in the global marketplace. I strongly supported more flexibility in our commodity programs. And I have strongly supported efforts to improve our research infrastructure and expand and open foreign markets. But our actions were not enough. Congress could not wave a magic wand and create a rational world market for agricultural products. The commodity title of the 1996 Farm Bill was written for a world that simply did not, and does not, exist. This year, in this Farm Bill, Congress has the opportunity to write a commodity title that works. And Senator Harkin and the Senate Agriculture Committee did just that. Wheat and barley producers in Washington State will benefit from a strong safety net that includes a good balance between higher loan rates, fixed payments, and countercyclical payments when market prices fall below target prices. In addition, the bill includes a new marketing assistance loan program for dry peas, lentils, and chickpeas. I applaud this provision in the bill. It will help restore market-based decisions and make it economical for producers across the northern-tier States to grow these important rotational crops. I have been pleased to work with my dry pea, lentil, and chickpea growers in Washington State on this important issue. I believe it is critical, and I urge, the conferees to retain this provision in the final bill. The Senate Farm Bill makes critical investments in conservation. The conservation title creates new opportunities to conserve resources on private lands while helping farmers and ranchers with their bottom lines. The conservation title of this bill gradually increases funding for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program from its existing authorization of $200 million a year to $1.5 billion each year. EQIP is an effective and flexible tool. It provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to producers to build animal waste management facilities, improve irrigation efficiency, or enhance wildlife habitat. The EQIP funding included in this bill will help us improve water quality and salmon habitat in the Pacific Northwest. The bill also includes commonsense increases for the Conservation Reserve Program and the Wetlands Reserve Program. While I recognize there are some concerns in farm country with expanding these programs, I believe the CRP and WRP provisions in this bill are reasonable. The bill includes a new water conservation program within CRP. I believe this program will lead to new opportunities to protect fish and wildlife, while respecting the rights of our farmers and ranchers. As the bill goes to conference, I look forward to working with interested organizations on this issue. Finally, the conservation title expands our investments in the Farmland Protection Program, the Wildlife Habitat Improvement Program, the Resource Conservation and Development Program, establishes a new Conservation Security Program, and improves forestry initiatives. The conservation changes made in this bill are particularly important to States like Washington. The farmers in my State produce approximately 230 commodities. However, only a fraction of these commodities have a direct income or price support relationship with the Federal Government. Without new investments in the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, and the Conservation Security Program, many farmers and ranchers would not receive the financial help they need to make the conservation investments the public is demanding. This bill creates a win-win situation for the environment and for farmers and ranchers. I believe Congress also has a responsibility to create a win-win situation for our farmers and ranchers with respect to trade. One way we can do this is to invest in trade promotion programs that will help our farmers build marketshare in foreign countries. In 1999, and again in 2001, I introduced the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act. My legislation would increase funding in the Market Access Program to $200 million and enhance funding for the Foreign Market Development Program. I was joined on that legislation by a bipartisan coalition of members. The Senate Farm Bill includes substantial new investments in the Market Access Program and the Foreign Market Development Program, and I was pleased to be the leading advocate in the Senate to enhance these programs. Congress also has a responsibility to allow all commodity groups to participate in our foreign food aid programs. I worked to include a small provision in the Farm Bill that requires the U.S. Department of Agriculture to issue a report on the use of perishable commodities, like potatoes and apples, in foreign food aid programs. Specifically, my amendment requires USDA to report to the Congress on transportation and storage infrastructure problems and funding problems that have prevented greater participation in the programs by specialty crops. Just recently, 110,000 boxes of apples arrived in Vladivostok, Russia. This is the first time USDA has funded a shipment of perishable commodities through our foreign food aid programs. I believe our fruit and vegetable producers deserve an opportunity to participate in these initiatives, and I believe this report will be an important first step in improving access to these programs. The Farm Bill includes additional provisions that I believe will help our farmers and ranchers. The first would require country-of-origin labeling for fruits and vegetables, meat, and farm-raised fish and shellfish. We require our farmers and ranchers to meet environmental and food safety standards that are far above many of our competitors. Country-of-origin labeling will give consumers additional information with which to make a decision on the food they buy. The second provision would allow the Federal Government to guarantee private loans to Cuba for the purchase of U.S. agricultural products. For too long, the United States has used food as a weapon against the Cuban people. The only person that has benefitted from this policy is Fidel Castro. I strongly support the Committee's bill with respect to Cuba, and I was pleased to join with my colleagues in defeating an amendment to eliminate these new financing tools. Trade is critical to the long-term future of our agricultural producers. One other long-term investment we need to make is in the area of agricultural research. In my home State, we are fortunate to have an excellent working relationship between our State universities and the USDA Agricultural Research Service. Through these partnerships, our universities and USDA have been able to leverage limited resources to create new varieties of crops, enhance food safety and improve conservation. This research benefits farmers, consumers, and the environment. I am pleased that this Farm Bill strengthens our research infrastructure and increases funding for priority research initiatives. One program that is of particular significance to researchers in Washington State is the Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems, and I am pleased the Senate bill includes additional funding for it. The Farm Bill goes far beyond agriculture and conservation. It is a critical vehicle for helping communities and the poor. Senator Harkin has always been a leader in rural development, and this Farm Bill shows how seriously he takes this issue. Included in the managers' amendment is a provision I authored on rural telecommunications planning. It would simply modify the broadband telecommunications grant program in the bill to add a small planning component. I will work to include this and other rural telecommunications provisions in the final bill. I would like to complete my remarks by commending Senators Harkin and Lugar for their efforts in writing a strong nutrition title in this Farm Bill. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Committee have an outstanding record on these issues. During debate on the Farm Bill, I was pleased to support amendments that further strengthened the food stamp program changes included in the bill. The underlying bill made significant improvements to the food stamp program. It provides three more months of transition food stamps for families moving off welfare. It simplifies the program for State administrators and participating families. It helps benefits keep up with inflation and addresses the needs of the poorest families. And it restores eligibility for low-income working legal immigrants and their families. The Senate also passed amendments by Senators Durbin, Dorgan, and McConnell that expanded the nutrition title. The Durbin amendment helped restore food stamp benefits to legal immigrants who have lived in the United States for five years. The Dorgan amendment expanded access to food stamps for families with children and modified the excess shelter expense deduction. The McConnell amendment expanded access to food stamps for low-income disabled families. I was pleased to support final passage of this legislation. I believe it is the right bill at the right time for rural America, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as the bill goes to conference.