Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible. Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association, AHA, reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, 10 percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding 2-year period. In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008. According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, shows a 3-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list. While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent. The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy. Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions. Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately 9 million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week. Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older. Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects. One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a 9-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a 6-month interval in the absence of further treatment. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry with have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the Nation's health care system in this decade and beyond. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages. There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to: Washington State Hospital Association Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA) American Association for Respiratory Care American Association of Community Colleges American Clinical Laboratory Association American Dental Hygienists' Association American Dietetic Association American Health Information Management Association American Hospital Association American Physical Therapy Association American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science American Society for Clinical Pathology American Society of Radiologic Technologists Association of Academic Health Centers College of Health Deans Midwest Regional Deans Group Myositis Association National Association of EMS Educators National Cancer Registrars Association National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year Colleges Northeast Regional Deans Group In addition to these organizations, I would also like to express my appreciation to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, for its support of the legislation as well as its ongoing efforts to address the need for allied health professionals and allied health faculty. ASAHP, founded in 1967, has a membership that includes 108 institutions of higher learning throughout the United States, as well as several hundred individual members. ASAHP publishes a quarterly journal and also conducts an annual survey of member institutions. This annual survey, called the ``Institutional Profile Survey,'' is used for, among other purposes, collecting student application and enrollment data. These data substantiate that there is a pressing need to address existing allied health workforce shortages, which have been further exacerbated by declines in enrollment that have occurred for 4 straight years. In the survey conducted during the period September-November 2004 for the 2004-2005 class starting in fall 2004, the results from 90 academic institutions indicate that in 16 of the 20 professions studied, available classroom seats were not filled. For example, only 33 percent of enrollment capacity was reached for health information management programs in these schools. Given the emphasis on increasing the use of information technology in health care such as conversion to electronic patient records, that figure is disturbingly low. Similarly, the survey shows that enrollment levels were low in the following professions: rehabilitation counseling, 44 percent, emergency medical sciences, 66 percent, cytotechnology, 69 percent, and medical technology, 77 percent. Severe workforce shortages already exist in the two laboratory professions and emergency medical personnel will play a key role as first responders in dealing with any bioterrorism incident that might occur. Using data from the Institutional Profile Survey, as well as the General Accounting Office, U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources, ASAHP has compiled what I believe to be a compelling rationale in its support for the Allied Health Reinvestment Act that Senators Bingaman, Lieberman, and I introduce today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Rationale for an Allied Health Reinvestment Act from the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut. The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible. Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association, AHA, reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, 10 percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding 2-year period. In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008. According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, shows a 3-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list. While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population. The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent. The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy. Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions. Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately 9 million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week. Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older. Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects. One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a 9-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a 6-month interval in the absence of further treatment. The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry with have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the Nation's health care system in this decade and beyond. The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel. Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas. Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program. I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages. There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to: Washington State Hospital Association Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA) American Association for Respiratory Care American Association of Community Colleges American Clinical Laboratory Association American Dental Hygienists' Association American Dietetic Association American Health Information Management Association American Hospital Association American Physical Therapy Association American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science American Society for Clinical Pathology American Society of Radiologic Technologists Association of Academic Health Centers College of Health Deans Midwest Regional Deans Group Myositis Association National Association of EMS Educators National Cancer Registrars Association National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year Colleges Northeast Regional Deans Group In addition to these organizations, I would also like to express my appreciation to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, for its support of the legislation as well as its ongoing efforts to address the need for allied health professionals and allied health faculty. ASAHP, founded in 1967, has a membership that includes 108 institutions of higher learning throughout the United States, as well as several hundred individual members. ASAHP publishes a quarterly journal and also conducts an annual survey of member institutions. This annual survey, called the ``Institutional Profile Survey,'' is used for, among other purposes, collecting student application and enrollment data. These data substantiate that there is a pressing need to address existing allied health workforce shortages, which have been further exacerbated by declines in enrollment that have occurred for 4 straight years. In the survey conducted during the period September-November 2004 for the 2004-2005 class starting in fall 2004, the results from 90 academic institutions indicate that in 16 of the 20 professions studied, available classroom seats were not filled. For example, only 33 percent of enrollment capacity was reached for health information management programs in these schools. Given the emphasis on increasing the use of information technology in health care such as conversion to electronic patient records, that figure is disturbingly low. Similarly, the survey shows that enrollment levels were low in the following professions: rehabilitation counseling, 44 percent, emergency medical sciences, 66 percent, cytotechnology, 69 percent, and medical technology, 77 percent. Severe workforce shortages already exist in the two laboratory professions and emergency medical personnel will play a key role as first responders in dealing with any bioterrorism incident that might occur. Using data from the Institutional Profile Survey, as well as the General Accounting Office, U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources, ASAHP has compiled what I believe to be a compelling rationale in its support for the Allied Health Reinvestment Act that Senators Bingaman, Lieberman, and I introduce today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Rationale for an Allied Health Reinvestment Act from the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions be printed in the Record. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth epidemic in its tracks. Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the meth fight. While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic, started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina. Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent. This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi- national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth epidemic in its tracks. Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the meth fight. While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic, started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina. Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent. This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi- national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Senate with a responsibility to evaluate Presidential nominations. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously because the Senate's role ensures strong leadership at the very highest levels of the Federal Government. Today, the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Leading the Department of Homeland Security is not an easy job, and requires an individual with tireless dedication, unending perseverance, and strong leadership. The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Chairman Collins and ranking member Lieberman, conducted a thorough examination of Judge Chertoffs record, and I support the committee's recommendation to endorse his nomination. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a serious responsibility--leading our country's unified effort to secure America and protect the homeland from terrorist attacks. To take this job, Judge Chertoff has walked away from a lifetime appointment to third circuit, a position for which I supported him. I commend him for embracing this new responsibility and answering the call of the President and of all American citizens. In the wake of the attacks on September 11, our Nation was confronted with a challenge to revamp our homeland security posture and adopt a strategic plan to defend America from global threat of terrorism. Many of our efforts to strengthen homeland security have been successful, and were long overdue. But there are critical networks and infrastructure that need additional attention to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, such as: our food supply, telecommunications and financial networks, rail transportation infrastructure, and chemical facilities. In Washington State, we have looked to the Department of Homeland Security to assist us in preparing our first responders and providing them with the financial, training, and information resources they need to meet new security requirements. I would urge Judge Chertoff to continue to work closely with local first responders from my state who are on the front lines of ensuring that Washington's ports, borders, and critical infrastructure are secure. I am confident that Judge Chertoff will be confirmed today. I am eager to begin working with him to continue to improve the security of Washington State and all of America's homeland.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joining with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This legislation is similar to the version of S. 2505, the Low Power Radio Act of 2004 that was introduced last Congress. This bill removes once and for all the barriers keeping low power FM service from flourishing in communities of all sizes across the country, while protecting important radio reading services. Under the existing law, my State has only a handful of low power FM stations. If this bill becomes law, the Federal Communication Commission will be able to move forward and license additional low power FM stations to serve communities all across the State of Washington such as Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island and Auburn. Let me review the history of this issue for the Senate. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed completely the ownership caps restricting the number of stations that any one company can own nationwide. The Act has led to an unprecedented level of consolidation and mergers in the U.S. radio industry. Additionally, within a local market, the rules allows ownership of up to eight radio stations, on a sliding scale, depending on total number of stations in the market. Five years ago, the FCC adopted rules creating a new, low power FM radio service in response to public concerns that the increased consolidation of radio ownership weakened the local character of radio. Low power FM stations serve the public interest by providing significantly greater opportunities for citizen involvement in broadcasting in communities across the country. Eligible licensees are non-profit, government or educational institutions, public safety or transportations services. No existing broadcasting licensee or media entity can have an ownership interest or any program or operating agreement with any low power FM stations. In many media markets, the number of independent local voices has dropped significantly, replaced by giant corporations replicating formats and programming from across the country. Voice-tracking, a practice in which a DJ either pre-records part of a program for a local station or for a station out of the immediate market, is not a substitute for true localism. With fewer independent outlets available for artists to get airplay for a given genre of music, particularly for newer acts, there is a perception in some quarters of the music industry that you need to resort to the reprehensible practices such as payola in order to be heard by the public. During its proceeding on low power FM, the FCC conducted tests on the effects of these low power stations on full power FM broadcasts for various types of radio receivers. The FCC engineering reports concluded that low power FM signals would not cause interference with the signals to full power FM stations within their service areas. Based on the results of interference testing, LPFM stations were not required to protect stations three channels away from inference as is required for full power stations. These rules allowed radio frequencies for LPFM stations to become available in larger media markets where under the old rules of third adjacent channel separation, there was no space available for them on the crowded radio dial. While the public reaction to low power FM was positive, the reaction of FM broadcasters, both commercial and non-commercial, was negative. Congress was convinced to add a rider to the 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations law that effectively undid the provisions in the FCC rules, and once again required third adjacent channel separation. Congress also required the FCC to perform a study examining the impact on interference on the third adjacent channel. Over two million dollars later, the results of the study validated the FCC's original analysis. Last year, I joined the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in sponsoring a bill that would have accepted the results of this latest engineering study to undo the 2001 appropriations rider. It also addressed specific concerns about protecting stations providing reading services over the radio frequencies to assist the blind. Under the Senator from Arizona's (Mr. McCain) leadership, the Commerce Committee reported the low power FM bill out favorably with an amendment, but it did not come to a vote on the floor. The time has come to move ahead with this proposal. The U.S. radio industry has experienced an unprecedented wave of consolidation and mergers since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The consolidation trend has raised barriers of both size and cost for new broadcasters. The legislation we introduce today allows new entrants into broadcasting activities and new voices on our public airwaves. I hope the Commerce Committee will again act quickly on this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joining with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This legislation is similar to the version of S. 2505, the Low Power Radio Act of 2004 that was introduced last Congress. This bill removes once and for all the barriers keeping low power FM service from flourishing in communities of all sizes across the country, while protecting important radio reading services. Under the existing law, my State has only a handful of low power FM stations. If this bill becomes law, the Federal Communication Commission will be able to move forward and license additional low power FM stations to serve communities all across the State of Washington such as Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island and Auburn. Let me review the history of this issue for the Senate. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed completely the ownership caps restricting the number of stations that any one company can own nationwide. The Act has led to an unprecedented level of consolidation and mergers in the U.S. radio industry. Additionally, within a local market, the rules allows ownership of up to eight radio stations, on a sliding scale, depending on total number of stations in the market. Five years ago, the FCC adopted rules creating a new, low power FM radio service in response to public concerns that the increased consolidation of radio ownership weakened the local character of radio. Low power FM stations serve the public interest by providing significantly greater opportunities for citizen involvement in broadcasting in communities across the country. Eligible licensees are non-profit, government or educational institutions, public safety or transportations services. No existing broadcasting licensee or media entity can have an ownership interest or any program or operating agreement with any low power FM stations. In many media markets, the number of independent local voices has dropped significantly, replaced by giant corporations replicating formats and programming from across the country. Voice-tracking, a practice in which a DJ either pre-records part of a program for a local station or for a station out of the immediate market, is not a substitute for true localism. With fewer independent outlets available for artists to get airplay for a given genre of music, particularly for newer acts, there is a perception in some quarters of the music industry that you need to resort to the reprehensible practices such as payola in order to be heard by the public. During its proceeding on low power FM, the FCC conducted tests on the effects of these low power stations on full power FM broadcasts for various types of radio receivers. The FCC engineering reports concluded that low power FM signals would not cause interference with the signals to full power FM stations within their service areas. Based on the results of interference testing, LPFM stations were not required to protect stations three channels away from inference as is required for full power stations. These rules allowed radio frequencies for LPFM stations to become available in larger media markets where under the old rules of third adjacent channel separation, there was no space available for them on the crowded radio dial. While the public reaction to low power FM was positive, the reaction of FM broadcasters, both commercial and non-commercial, was negative. Congress was convinced to add a rider to the 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations law that effectively undid the provisions in the FCC rules, and once again required third adjacent channel separation. Congress also required the FCC to perform a study examining the impact on interference on the third adjacent channel. Over two million dollars later, the results of the study validated the FCC's original analysis. Last year, I joined the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in sponsoring a bill that would have accepted the results of this latest engineering study to undo the 2001 appropriations rider. It also addressed specific concerns about protecting stations providing reading services over the radio frequencies to assist the blind. Under the Senator from Arizona's (Mr. McCain) leadership, the Commerce Committee reported the low power FM bill out favorably with an amendment, but it did not come to a vote on the floor. The time has come to move ahead with this proposal. The U.S. radio industry has experienced an unprecedented wave of consolidation and mergers since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The consolidation trend has raised barriers of both size and cost for new broadcasters. The legislation we introduce today allows new entrants into broadcasting activities and new voices on our public airwaves. I hope the Commerce Committee will again act quickly on this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last week, I announced that I would oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. I share many of the views on and reasons for opposing this nominee that my other colleagues have detailed--among them, the very grave concerns raised about Judge Gonzales's role in producing the so-called ``torture memos.'' But, I rise today to share with the Senate a reason for opposing this nominee that is particularly important to my home State of Washington. It is a reason that has not gotten much attention, but it is an issue I want to highlight because I feel Senators should know about it when they cast their vote on this nominee. Among the reasons I am opposing Mr. Gonzales is his connections to Enron and his failure to commit to recuse himself from the Department of Justice's ongoing Enron investigation. The Attorney General of the United States, as the chief law enforcement officer in the land, holds a special independent place in the government. After carefully listening to Judge Gonzales during his Senate hearings and reading his responses to questions, I do not have confidence that a Justice Department under his leadership will conduct the Enron investigations with sufficient vigor and independence. We want our Attorney General to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is no matter how politically inconvenient and no matter who asks for his advice. This administration's ties to Enron are common knowledge. In audiotapes released last summer, we heard Enron traders bragging about Enron's status as the number one contributor to the President's election campaign in 2000. We know that former Enron executives even had a hand in bankrolling the President's Inaugural festivities last month. So I think it's important for my colleagues to also realize that Judge Gonzales himself also had substantial ties to Enron while he was an attorney in private practice and then a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court. Given the significance of this case and the past recusal of the outgoing Attorney General, Judge Gonzales should have made clear his intention to recuse himself from that investigation. Let me repeat this important point. Attorney General Ashcroft knew to recuse himself because of similar political ties to Enron. Before his confirmation, I wanted the same assurances from Gonzales, or at least an explanation of why these former professional and political ties to Enron do not constitute grounds for recusal. I got none. Let me make a few comments about the status of Federal investigations into the Enron mess, and why I believe it is so troubling that Judge Gonzales has to date refused to recuse himself from this matter. It's my belief that, to date, the Department of Justice has done a good job in pursuing the case against Enron. I stood on this floor about seven months ago and applauded the work of the Enron Task Force when it handed down indictments of top executives including Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling last summer. And the U.S. Attorneys in Northern California have been equally successful in bringing charges and securing guilty pleas from some of the Enron traders implicated in the conspiracy to manipulate our Western power markets. But this investigation is not finished. The Enron investigation must be allowed to proceed, free from any potential political interference from special interests, particularly the interests under investigation. I would also note that we have not seen the same vigor--the same pursuit of justice--by other departments and agencies within the Administration, and in particular the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC is charged with protecting American consumers from precisely the types of fraud Enron perpetrated in our Nation's energy markets. FERC is also run by three Bush administration appointees who had ties to Enron. In fact, the Senate Government Affairs Committee uncovered Enron memos recommending their appointment to the White House. To date, these FERC appointees have failed to take any meaningful action to provide the victims of Enron's power market manipulations with any measure of relief. At every step of the way, it has taken public embarrassment to get FERC to pursue an Enron investigation of any integrity. Or in the words of a November 2002 report by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, ``Over and over again, FERC displayed a striking lack of thoroughness and determination with respect to key aspects of Enron's activities.'' Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. FERC's Enron investigation to date has been marked by a lack of aggressive action. In fact, I'm going back to my office in just a few minutes to participate in a conference call with officials from the Snohomish Public Utility District in my home State of Washington. We are going to air publicly, for the first time, new Enron audiotapes. Shockingly, these Enron tapes were just discovered sitting in one of Enron's Houston warehouses. They were left behind by the same Federal regulators that are supposed to be defending our Nation's consumers from the types of fraud Enron perpetrated in our energy markets. Only a small portion of these new tapes have been processed. But on these tapes, the American public will hear Enron employees during the company's collapse bemoaning the fact they couldn't get promoted unless they ``cooked the books;'' speculating that ``everyone knew,'' and that ``nothing happened at Enron that Ken Lay didn't bless.'' This is evidence that was left behind. New evidence will also show Enron traders fabricating excuses to shut down a power plant--on the very same day that rolling blackouts hit California and disrupted the Western power market. The blackouts affected at least half a million people that day. As we learned with the recent Northeast/Midwest blackout, these are serious matters. Not only do blackouts cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity, they pose serious risks to human health and safety. They are no laughing matter. In my mind, this represents a whole new level of callousness. But what Enron did was not just disgraceful on a human level--it was also illegal. It was a direct violation of power market rules and a direct violation of a DOE emergency order issued by former Secretary Bill Richardson the very same day. And yet, our Federal agencies are not unearthing this new evidence. The FERC remains content to sit on its hands, more than four years after the Enron collapse. Utilities in the West are actually being sued by Enron for even more money. Yet FERC stands by, while Washington State ratepayers wait for the other shoe to drop. The consumers in my State, in the States of Nevada and California, deserve justice. But what they've gotten are years of process--a procedural shell game. We need more aggressive action from our Nation's top law-enforcement officer. This is why I was so deeply troubled to read Judge Gonzales's answers to questions posed by Members of the Judiciary Committee in this matter. I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for asking these important questions. In his answers, Judge Gonzales would not state whether he would recuse himself, and he would not be specific about how his former ties to Enron might impact the Department of Justice's investigation of that company. In his responses, Mr. Gonzales stated, ``I did some legal work for Enron over 10 years ago. I am told the work was totally unrelated to the collapse of the company.'' He added that ``it would be premature for me to commit to recuse myself from ongoing Enron prosecutions.'' Mr. Gonzales was clearly asked to provide more specificity, more details and more of a commitment on what Americans can expect from the Justice Department leadership on the Enron investigation. These answers of the nominee were not satisfactory. I find this particularly troubling, given the fact Judge Gonzales has a clear history of employment related and political ties to Enron, and a track-record that leads me to question his judgment and his independence from the President. As I stated at the outset, we want our Attorney General to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is no matter how politically inconvenient--and no matter who asks for his advice. So I will vote against Judge Gonzales's nomination today, for this and other important reasons. But I am also here to note that the Federal Enron investigation is not over. It is likely that Judge Gonzales may be confirmed as Attorney General later today. Perhaps Judge Gonzales will recuse himself after he is confirmed. But whatever his decision, I am here today to put Judge Gonzales on notice. If there is any hint whatsoever that the Enron Task Force is being undermined, underfunded, or otherwise hindered, this Senator will not stand for it. The Enron investigations must be allowed to proceed. And this Senator will be watching every single step of the way. This Senate deserves straight answers from the President's nominees. Corporate criminals deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And the victims of Enron's fraud in our Nation's power markets deserve relief. What Enron did to my constituents in Washington and to countless others across the Nation was disgraceful. Given these issues, I have substantial lingering questions about whether Mr. Gonzales would exercise independent judgment, especially when a clear commitment to conduct investigations and uphold a strict standard of conduct is needed. I also have serious concerns about Judge Gonzales's legal judgment. As White House Counsel, his office generated a legal opinion on whether the President is bound by domestic and international law on torture, which the government recently repudiated as legally faulty. Such a repudiation calls Judge Gonzales's judgment into question, judgment that is critically important for our country's top attorney. It also suggests he is not independent of the President, which is essential for his new Cabinet role. Further, Judge Gonzales's changed position on the torture memos in the weeks before his confirmation hearings appears to demonstrate political convenience, not a truly self-reflective change in his thinking on these matters. Had Judge Gonzales recognized the serious problems with the judgments he made on these issues and given convincing assurances that he understands that his new role will require a different approach and a new allegiance to the law, I might have been convinced to defer to the President on this nomination. Without those assurances, and a clear commitment to ensure that there is no appearance that the Justice Department may take a difference course on the Enron investigation, I cannot support his nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. In conclusion, many of my colleagues have spoken about this nomination. They have talked about a variety of issues, and certainly one of those issues is the independence of the Attorney General. That is clearly an issue that is at the forefront of my interest today. The reason is because ongoing in the Department of Justice, and I wish ongoing in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is an investigation of Enron and Enron fraud. This is an issue that Attorney General Ashcroft decided, when taking office--and the evidence started to pour in of market manipulation--he basically looked at his record and background of having taken contributions from Enron and he recused himself from the Enron investigation and task force. Now we have before us a new Attorney General nominee who not only has accepted campaign contributions from Enron, he actually worked to represent them at the law firm in his private practice, specifically working for the Enron company as an outside counsel. If our past Attorney General clearly identified a conflict of interest and basically stepped aside to make sure he was not in any way unduly influencing the Enron investigation, why should not this nominee have clearly done the same thing--in particular, giving answers to the Judiciary Committee that he would recuse himself? I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I am a past member of that committee, but I certainly asked my colleagues to submit questions to Judge Gonzales asking him if, in fact, he would recuse himself and to be explicit about any other ways in which he could ensure that this Enron investigation continued with its independence. Judge Gonzales would not commit to recusing himself from this situation. Because he will not recuse himself, I cannot, today, give him my vote knowing that he will achieve the independence this agency so much needs to have when it comes to this investigation. Just today, this very day, Snohomish County PUD will be releasing new information, new audiotapes from Enron employees that just happened to be left behind at the Enron Houston facility that investigators forgot to claim. These tapes actually have Enron employees discussing the fact that superiors, Enron traders, had asked them to cook the books. We also will see other tapes and information that basically says that various, what are called, cogeneration facilities, that Enron had business relationships with, were actually asked to take generation offline, to come up with a scheme of why they should stop production of these powerplants. The result was a blackout in California in the next few days following this time period--something that is very troubling to us in the Northwest. We have spent billions of dollars of economic impact, and we want an investigation to continue to take place. We want the independence that the Federal Energy regulators should have in this case in determining that just and reasonable rates have not been charged by Enron. We want the Department of Justice to do its job, unfettered by any kind of influence, and continue to pursue all those involved with the Enron case until justice is given and ratepayers have relief in the West. So it is unfortunate that we cannot get Judge Gonzales to make a commitment up front about where he is going to be in recusing himself on this very important matter that has had great fiscal consequence to the people of the Northwest. I wish, given all the other aspects of this nomination, I could overlook this issue or other questions that some of my colleagues have brought up, but I cannot. As a young woman, when I first learned about our Attorney General, at a time and era when a White House and President and outside influence said that the Attorney General should just follow the line of what was happening in the White House, we had Attorneys General who decided, instead of not carrying out the law, they were not going to be influenced by the White House; that they would rather resign than not carry out the law. That is the kind of independence we want to see in an Attorney General. The case is clear against Enron. The case for recusing himself is clear. Unfortunately, I cannot support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales today because I am not sure he will recuse himself in this case. The ratepayers of Washington State need relief. We do not want to continue to have to be the policemen on the beat investigating this case, finding new evidence, proving that wrongdoing has happened, continuing to prove how much we have been hurt. We want Federal regulators to do their job and give us relief. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gonzales's written responses to Judiciary Committee questions be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as small businesses in the State of Washington continue to struggle with the extraordinarily high costs of electricity following the Western Energy Crisis of 2000-2001 and significant increases in the costs of other petroleum fuels, I wanted to make a statement in support of the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005, S. 269, introduced yesterday by the Senator from Massachusetts, Mr. Kerry. This legislation establishes a critically important safety net for small businesses and family farms that suffer direct economic injury due to exorbitant and immediate increases in energy costs, and I am pleased to be an original cosponsor. During the 107th Congress, I was proud to cosponsor the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2001, which contained many of the same provisions that are included in this legislation. The Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005 would provide small businesses and farms economic relief in the form of low- interest emergency loans to help mitigate the effects of significant spikes in the prices of heating oil, propane, natural gas, and kerosene. To be eligible, an applicant must be a small-business owner or agriculture producer, must have used all reasonably available funds it may have, and must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere. The U.S. Small Business Administration would provide loans to small-businesses and farms would apply for loans through the U.S. Department of Agriculture. As my colleagues know, small businesses and farms typically operate on narrow margins. They depend on affordable and stable cost inputs-- such as fuel--to maintain their productivity. However, the recent volatility of energy prices has levied a considerable strain on the operating budgets of many American small businesses and family farms and ultimately threatened their sustainability. Without this emergency assistance, the viability of some Washington State small businesses and farms would be compromised during times when energy prices spike. This emergency relief program is vital to protecting small businesses from the considerable economic impact of surging energy costs and we must do all that is possible to help them overcome these challenges. Mr. President, the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act provides critical assistance for our small businesses and farms through trying economic conditions. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to give it their full support.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator. As we go into this debate, the women are going to be loud and clear. This plan for Social Security impacts us to a greater degree than our male counterparts because of our longevity and because of the disparity in wages. Let's talk about how we make Social Security better for women and for all Americans.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, if I could ask for 30 seconds.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Maryland for her recognition and hard work on this issue. I thank her for the recognition of the fact that we have two women Senators from Washington State. We achieved a milestone this past November when we elected a woman Governor, making us the first State in the Union to have two women Senators and a woman Governor. We are going to speak loudly about the issues impacting women. I come to the Senate floor to join my women colleagues. I could, I am sure, expound on a lot of comments that have been made in the last several weeks that have gotten some notoriety: the fact that somehow women may be genetically different than men and not be able to excel in math and science or the comment that a colleague made about the fact that now we may be getting closer to pay equity in the future. The bottom line of this debate on Social Security reform has to be that women are impacted with greater significance because of their longevity in life and because of the shortfall in pay equity that still exists in this country. Where does that leave American women when it comes to Social Security reform? I could talk a lot about whether the private accounts are great foundations for this country. I have some grave concerns about them. I also believe at this point in time taking money from the deficit, basically adding to our deficit and paying into what are to be these private accounts may not be in the best interests of the American people. The point I make this morning is that we are at a time in which women are still getting the short end of the stick in this country. If we want to think about anything in the Social Security reform debate, why don't we think about the way Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments do not take into consideration that seniors, older women, are living longer and actually have a greater percentage of their incomes go toward particular goods and services to a larger degree than young people's incomes do. Try buying prescription drugs, try balancing things in retirement and living off of the benefits. Women are particularly challenged, but older women, being the most impacted by Social Security, will continue to have this challenge for decades to come. So the benefit structure of Social Security is very important. The current pace of change that is happening in the way our economy is transitioning has not necessarily impacted that. In 1963, women earned 59 cents to every $1 men earned. It is true women now earn considerably more than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, but in spite of the steady growth of earnings, the pay gap between men and women has basically been stalled for the past two decades, averaging slightly under 20 percent less than men. The Senate may be a very unique institution in that it is the only place where you actually have a guarantee of pay equity between men and women. Yet in 2003 women actually saw their earnings decline for the first time since 1995. That means real median earnings of men who worked full time year round remained unchanged in 2002 at roughly over $40,000, and real median earnings of women with similar work experience actually decreased 0.6-percent to about $30,000. As a result, women still only make 76 cents for every $1 that is now earned by men. That is down from what it was in 2000 at 77 cents. We are going in the wrong direction. And now someone wants to suggest that we tinker with Social Security benefits. Think of my mother and the support she had as a woman getting Social Security also from her husband and his Social Security, not having worked, or women who have not worked all their lives in the work place and, instead, being full-time mothers. Now we will say we will calculate Social Security on your earnings. Great. Well, let's have pay equity for women so it is calculated on an equal footing. We are living longer, we are earning less, and the President's proposal will impact us the most. Related to the pay equity statistics I just mentioned, for women's families, this means $24 less a month than men to spend on groceries, child care, and other expenses. In fact, the Institution of Women's Research did an estimate that families in America lose over $200 billion of income per year in this wage gap because of unequal pay that women's families lose, an average of $4,000 annually. I am asking my colleagues, at a time when we are talking about how to secure the future, how are we going to secure that future for women who are living longer, in retirement, who have this inequity in the system? That is why I am going to introduce a bill later today basically suggesting that we change the cost-of-living index to specifically reflect the current costs that women are experiencing--women and men, alike--in retirement age. But I think what we need to do now is look at this legislation that is before the Senate and say to ourselves, How is it fair to have the inequity with women when we are not doing anything to close the wage gap? It is actually going in the wrong direction. That includes making sure women in retirement, in the retirement structure of Social Security that we talk about and consider before this body, actually reflect the reality that is happening in America today. I have talked to many of my constituents about this issue. I am sure we are going to talk to many more over the next several months. One of my constituents, a woman I happened to meet in a local convenience store, said to me: The thing I want is my Social Security money. They have paid into the system. They want something for it. Frankly, they think when we take Social Security and use it off- budget, to basically say this is how we are covering our huge deficit, that is basically taking from Social Security and not protecting it. What they want to know is, Why don't we get a better return on our investment? Why don't we take, just like a retirement account that she or her husband gets, or a State pension program that gets a higher return, and, basically, take the money that is paid into Social Security and get a higher return on it as well? Yes, and I would say some of my constituents probably think they themselves could do a good job at making private investments. But they do not necessarily think everybody in America will be able to make those decisions at a time in which our economy continues to sag, and there are some people who are unemployed and not fully benefitting and paying into the system, or, as I said earlier about the income-earning disparity between men and women.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005''. I am thankful that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho will again be the lead Republican cosponsor and pleased to also be joined by the Senior Senator from Washington, (Mrs. Murray), as well as Senator from Oregon, (Mr. Smith). Some 12,000 to 17,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, a series of floods swept across the Pacific Northwest. These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today. Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our State will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country. It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across Eastern and Central Washington. I look forward to working with my other members of the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, to ensure swift passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail Designation Act of 2005''. I am thankful that Senator Larry Craig of Idaho will again be the lead Republican cosponsor and pleased to also be joined by the Senior Senator from Washington, (Mrs. Murray), as well as Senator from Oregon, (Mr. Smith). Some 12,000 to 17,000 years ago, at the end of the Ice Age, a series of floods swept across the Pacific Northwest. These epic floods fundamentally changed the geography and way of life in the Pacific Northwest. The coulees, buttes, boulder fields, lakes, ridges and gravel bars they left behind still define the unique landscape of our State and our region today. Creating a National Park Service trail to recognize and celebrate how these floods literally shaped the face of our State will provide an unparalleled educational resource for Washingtonians and visitors from across the country. It will also spur economic development and create jobs in local communities across Eastern and Central Washington. I look forward to working with my other members of the Pacific Northwest congressional delegation, as well as my colleagues in the Senate, to ensure swift passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today, the Senate is considering the nomination of Dr. Samuel Bodman to be the next Secretary of Energy. I understand that Dr. Bodman is likely to be confirmed. Though I will support his nomination, I want to review my understanding of Dr. Bodman's commitment to several issues that are critical to our Nation and specifically to my State of Washington, so that he can begin his tenure with a clear understanding of this Senator's expectations. During his confirmation process, I had the opportunity to meet with Dr. Bodman personally and to engage him and seek his views on the policies of the Department of Energy. Among the issues I raised were several of critical importance to the State of Washington, such as maintaining the Federal Government's commitment to clean up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, considering carefully any changes to Federal policies regarding the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, and advancing the Federal role in research and development at institutions such as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. On some of these issues, Dr. Bodman stated he needs time to review them early in his tenure at DOE, and has committed to me to do so. In other cases, he was able to make a more explicit commitment on the issue's merits, such as the enforcement of the Triparty Agreement on cleanup of the Hanford Nuclear reservation. From our interactions, Dr. Bodman has begun to develop an appreciation for just how large DOE's ``footprint'' is in the State of Washington and how much is at stake for our economy and environment when it comes to the many policy decisions he will make when confirmed as Secretary of Energy. It is a job that comes with a considerable number of challenges--but also incredible opportunity. Putting in place a real, forward-looking energy policy for the 21st century is not only essential for this Nation's economic security, it is my belief that it will fuel the next wave of innovation. It is critical for this country to take the technology lead in the energy sector. Otherwise, we will find ourselves in 10 to 20 years in exactly the same position we do today as it relates to our dependence on foreign oil--we will be importing the next generation of energy technology. Instead, we need to seize the opportunity before us and recognize that it is the key to securing our Nation's long-term energy independence. As I have expressed to Dr. Bodman, the Western electricity market meltdown of 2000-2001 has had a profound impact on my State's economy, the pocketbooks and economic well-being of my constituents. Moreover, the Western crisis has brought to the forefront a number of very important policy questions about the kind of behavior that will be tolerated in our Nation's electricity markets, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC has continued to pursue its ``restructuring'' agenda. As the Secretary of Energy, Dr. Bodman will have a very important, leading role--defined in the 1977 Department of Energy Organization Act--in guiding overall electric regulatory policy. The incoming DOE Secretary will need to provide strong leadership and condemn the types of schemes used by Enron traders--manipulation tactics with infamous nicknames like Get Shorty, Death Star, and Ricochet. These are more than just ``theoretical'' concerns for me and my constituents. Not only are Western ratepayers trying to recover some small fraction of the money they lost to Enron as a result of its unscrupulous trading practices, they are trying to avoid paying even more. Right now, Enron is claiming utilities in Washington State and Nevada alone owe about a half billion dollars more--for power Enron never even delivered. You can understand just how outrageous this seems to my constituents, who are already struggling to pay their power bills. I am pleased that Dr. Bodman provided assurances that market manipulation cannot be tolerated and pledged to enforce applicable Federal statutes. We need to send a strong and unanimous message that these practices will not be tolerated in our Nation's electricity markets. Unfortunately, justice delayed is justice denied for Enron's victims. It has literally been years now, in which the ratepayers of my State-- who have already suffered enough--have been waiting for the other shoe to drop. I look forward to working with Dr. Bodman in righting past wrongs done to consumers--including those in the State of Washington-- and putting in place safeguards to prevent future victimization of electric ratepayers. As I referenced earlier in my remarks, I have emphasized to Dr. Bodman the importance of Hanford cleanup to the residents of Washington and the Pacific Northwest as a whole. It has been my experience that achieving our mutual goal of an effective and efficient Hanford cleanup suffers when relationships between the States and DOE, the congressional delegations and other stakeholders are damaged by the bad faith actions of one of the parties. Again, I applaud Dr. Bodman for publicly committing that the continued cleanup at Hanford will be done under the framework of the Triparty Agreement, TPA. I have also asked Dr. Bodman, and he has agreed, to consult with me and other members of the Washington congressional delegation on any administration or legislative proposals regarding tank waste stored at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. We will not tolerate the same situation that happened last year--when DOE-authored language related to the reclassification of high-level nuclear waste was inserted into the fiscal year 2005 Defense authorization bill. This negotiation that was done behind closed doors, in a committee that is not the rightful forum for debate on the issue of high-level nuclear waste and how it should be treated and disposed of. This legislative end run was viewed by me and the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, as well as the State of Washington and many of our constituents, as an ill- considered attempt to take short cuts at Hanford. I hope Dr. Bodman's commitment to consult with me will further his understanding of this issue and ultimately lead to an agreement that these bad faith maneuvers will not be continued by the Department of Energy under his leadership. Washington is blessed with an incredible system of clean, renewable, and cost-effective hydropower. The pitfalls of being 80-percent dependent on one particular source for electric generation--subject to the whims of Mother Nature--have been made all too apparent in the past few years. I look forward to ensuring that the Department of Energy and the policies that the incoming Secretary supports will ensure economic stability and growth for Washington residents specifically and throughout the Pacific Northwest. In order to meet these goals, the Department of Energy should be engaged in four broad activities. They include providing some regulatory certainty to the electric industry, at the same time we set some forward-thinking, yet achievable, goals for diversifying our energy sources; rationalizing our energy tax policy, and, in tight budgetary times, target it to support emerging technologies; we need to promote a vigorous research and development effort; and finally we need to make sure we are investing in the workforce, the human infrastructure, which is critical if we are going to lead in the global energy economy. I believe that we are using unique Federal resources towards contributing greatly to addressing some of these important challenges. Among its diverse missions within the Department of Energy, the Pacific Northwest National Lab has been a national leader in the development of ``smart-grid'' R&D. This ``smart-grid'' technology, due to be deployed throughout the Pacific Northwest, will allow a reliable response to energy demand and the propagation of a more distributive energy infrastructure. These types of programs allow us to make our energy grid more reliable, help train and grow our energy workforce for the 21st century, and sustain and grow our economy. These programs should serve as examples of progressive investment of Federal resources yielding incredible results. I look forward to working with Dr. Bodman to ensuring the future growth of these programs. Dr. Bodman also will be responsible for furthering the investments that incentivize the long-term production of alternative energy resources, including wind and biomass. I know that many of these have strong bipartisan support in the Congress and can play a critical role in sustainable economic development, especially in rural parts of our Nation, like most of the Eastern part of Washington State. Again, it is investments like these that can ensure a more reliable and distributive grid that will ultimately lessen our long term reliance on fossil fuels. Finally, I look forward to educating Dr. Bodman on the importance of the long-term stability of the Bonneville Power Administration. The incoming Secretary should note that decisions about the future operation of the BPA system, including any decision to join a regional transmission organization, or RTO, should be left to stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest. It is critical that Bonneville be allowed to continue making important investments in upgrading its transmission infrastructure. Last year's budget called for legislation that would have effectively ended critical transmission upgrades already underway in the Pacific Northwest by effectively exhausting BPA's borrowing authority in 2008. I hope that Dr. Bodman's further education on these matters will yield his commitment to ensure that these transmission upgrades can be completed--a key piece in making our energy system more reliable. Again, I am supporting Dr. Bodman's nomination. As the next Secretary of Energy, he will be our Nation's chief energy policymaker. I look forward to further educating Dr. Bodman on these issues that are so important to my State and working with him to address these important challenges. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Dr. Bodman's responses to my questions be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about the advantages of having a college education and the importance of ensuring access to higher education. That is why I am pleased to join as a cosponsor the Corzine-Smith Kennedy Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act of 2005. Due to recent changes made to the formula determining federal Pell grant awards, many students are at risk of losing needed financial aid. This bill would guarantee that no student sees a reduction in his or her Pell grant assistance in the 2005-2006 school year or loses the grant completely. We are all familiar with the adage: education is the great equalizer--and that a college education is the economic ladder to upward mobility. Not only do individuals reap benefits from having a college degree, society also values higher education--as we have also heard that education is the engine that drives a healthy economy. Basically, in addition to all its other benefits, having a good education pays individuals in the long run. According to a recent report by the college board, college graduates earn about 73 percent more than high school graduates over their working lives. For those with advanced degrees, earnings are two to three times higher than high school graduates. Moreover, society enjoys the financial returns on the investment in higher education--from generated higher tax payments to decreased dependency on public income- transfer programs. Overall, higher education improves individual and societal quality of life. While we are convinced that higher levels of educational attainment produces positive outcomes we need to do more to ensure access to higher education. With the cost of college tuition continuing to rise, financial aid is the decisive factor in determining whether thousands of high school seniors are college bound or not. In particular, Federal Pell grants are especially critical for low-income students financing their way through college. According to the college board, college tuition at 4 year institutions increased on average by over 10 percent in the 2004- 2005 school year. At 2-year public colleges, tuition increased by over 8 percent. However, the Department of Education's recent changes to the formulas for financial aid eligibility will cut $300 million in Pell grant assistance to students nationwide, resulting in drastic reductions of Pell grant awards to more then one million students. The American Council on Education estimates that 89,000 students who are currently eligible for a Pell grant will lose this financial assistance. An additional 1.3 million student will likely see a reduction of $100 to $300 in their Pell Grants. In my home State, over 4,000 students, just at one college, the University of Washington, will be adversely impacted from the change in financial aid eligibility. Early estimates show that about 3,900 students of the 6,900 eligible for a Pell Grant will lose up to $200 a year. Two hundred more students will probably lose their minimum grants of $400. Many of the students likely to see a decrease in their Pell grant award are low income. Federal financial aid was critical to my own educational achievements. I went to college on a Pell grant. It was a critical to my being able to finance my way through school. With these new rules, some students may quit school or will have to spend more time working when they should be going to class. The Ensuring Access for All Americans Act of 2005 would restore this critical financial assistance to thousands of needy students in the 2005-2006 school year. At a time when more and more employers are requiring a college degree for employment and tuition costs are skyrocketing, government should be opening the doors to educational opportunity, not locking students out. I urge prompt Senate action on this measure.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to take a moment to talk about the advantages of having a college education and the importance of ensuring access to higher education. That is why I am pleased to join as a cosponsor the Corzine-Smith Kennedy Ensuring College Access for All Americans Act of 2005. Due to recent changes made to the formula determining federal Pell grant awards, many students are at risk of losing needed financial aid. This bill would guarantee that no student sees a reduction in his or her Pell grant assistance in the 2005-2006 school year or loses the grant completely. We are all familiar with the adage: education is the great equalizer--and that a college education is the economic ladder to upward mobility. Not only do individuals reap benefits from having a college degree, society also values higher education--as we have also heard that education is the engine that drives a healthy economy. Basically, in addition to all its other benefits, having a good education pays individuals in the long run. According to a recent report by the college board, college graduates earn about 73 percent more than high school graduates over their working lives. For those with advanced degrees, earnings are two to three times higher than high school graduates. Moreover, society enjoys the financial returns on the investment in higher education--from generated higher tax payments to decreased dependency on public income- transfer programs. Overall, higher education improves individual and societal quality of life. While we are convinced that higher levels of educational attainment produces positive outcomes we need to do more to ensure access to higher education. With the cost of college tuition continuing to rise, financial aid is the decisive factor in determining whether thousands of high school seniors are college bound or not. In particular, Federal Pell grants are especially critical for low-income students financing their way through college. According to the college board, college tuition at 4 year institutions increased on average by over 10 percent in the 2004- 2005 school year. At 2-year public colleges, tuition increased by over 8 percent. However, the Department of Education's recent changes to the formulas for financial aid eligibility will cut $300 million in Pell grant assistance to students nationwide, resulting in drastic reductions of Pell grant awards to more then one million students. The American Council on Education estimates that 89,000 students who are currently eligible for a Pell grant will lose this financial assistance. An additional 1.3 million student will likely see a reduction of $100 to $300 in their Pell Grants. In my home State, over 4,000 students, just at one college, the University of Washington, will be adversely impacted from the change in financial aid eligibility. Early estimates show that about 3,900 students of the 6,900 eligible for a Pell Grant will lose up to $200 a year. Two hundred more students will probably lose their minimum grants of $400. Many of the students likely to see a decrease in their Pell grant award are low income. Federal financial aid was critical to my own educational achievements. I went to college on a Pell grant. It was a critical to my being able to finance my way through school. With these new rules, some students may quit school or will have to spend more time working when they should be going to class. The Ensuring Access for All Americans Act of 2005 would restore this critical financial assistance to thousands of needy students in the 2005-2006 school year. At a time when more and more employers are requiring a college degree for employment and tuition costs are skyrocketing, government should be opening the doors to educational opportunity, not locking students out. I urge prompt Senate action on this measure.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I want to detail for the Senate the reasons why I voted to support the nomination of Condoleeza Rice to be our Nation's next Secretary of State. Her diverse professional background as a Professor at Stanford University specializing in Russian affairs, her time as President Bush's National Security Advisor, and her demonstrated understanding of world affairs and diplomacy qualify her to run the Department of State. My support for Dr. Rice does not come without reservations about the direction this administration has taken with regard to foreign policy. We confront an enormous responsibility with respect to world affairs. The individual charged with the running of the State Department will set the direction for our country's policies around the world. This person will have the power to decide whether to nurture and develop, or halt our Nation's great diplomatic efforts. I hope Dr. Rice works to promote democracy throughout the world, not just by employing our ample military force, but that we seek to develop democracy organically, where it has not taken hold. Democracies will be more receptive to our products, ideas and people, and our Nation should approach its foreign policy decisions with these long-term goals in mind. My State of Washington is heavily reliant on international trade, and we also create and circulate information in this age of high technology, which should be a principal part of our foreign policy strategy. The Senate does not, by confirming Dr. Rice, place the responsibility for this country's diplomacy in the hands of a single individual. I do not believe that the American people are ready to ignore the voices of our humanitarian community who remind us how fragile and vulnerable our international relationship can be. I am hopeful that these voices will be heard by Dr. Rice. I am placing my trust in her that she will embrace her duty to take into account the future and foreseeable consequences of her actions, and that she will be guided by the knowledge that this Senator will raise those consequences at all appropriate occasions.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the White Salmon Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. I am pleased to be joined by the Senior Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), who has been a strong supporter of this legislation. This bill would designate some 20 miles of the main stem of the upper White Salmon River Salmon and one of its tributaries, Cascade Creek, all within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, as components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. By designating this upper third of the White Salmon, we can permanently protect this special river as a premiere recreational destination, a Southwest Washington economic resource, and an important wildlife habitat. I am happy to note that my delegation colleague, Congressman Baird, recently offered identical legislation in the House. The White Salmon River's remarkable beauty and pristine condition are not in question. In fact, the lower eight miles of the river received protection when Congress granted that stretch of the river Wild and Scenic status in 1986. As we saw then, its protected status hasn't prevented residents and visitors from taking advantage of the unique recreational opportunities the White Salmon River offers. Extending Wild and Scenic protection to the river's upper reaches today is an important step forward in protecting even more of its wild character for fishing, boating, and other recreational activities. As one of the best whitewater rivers in the Pacific Northwest, the White Salmon already supports a number of whitewater rafting companies. About 12,000 whitewater boaters visit the river each year. So I see this designation as not just protecting a pristine river, but also its beneficial impact on the local economy downstream. Protecting the White Salmon River will help increase opportunities for other outdoor sports, as well. This is an important sector of our state's economy. According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, fish and wildlife related recreation pumps nearly $2.2 billion per year into our economy. And we rank first in the Northwest and eighth in the nation in spending by sport fishers. Safeguarding the White Salmon through this designation will also be an important step toward restoring wildlife habitat. Once the Condit Dam is removed from the lower reach of the river, the White Salmon will again become valuable spawning habitat for salmon and steelhead. I am proud that identical legislation to the measure I introduce today passed the Senate unanimously on October 10, 2004. While the bill narrowly missed clearing the House of Representatives, I am confident that because this bill has a broad range of support, and is a true win- win proposal for local interests, that it will become law during the 109th Congress. Mr. President, I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate, as well as other members of the Washington state congressional delegation, to ensure swift passage of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Animal Feed Protection Act of 2005. It is similar to legislation that I introduced in the 108th Congress. Last week, during the Senate's consideration of the nomination of Governor Mike Johanns to be the Secretary of Agriculture, I spoke in favor of exercising caution with respect to re-opening the U.S.- Canadian border to imports of live animals and processed beef products until the Animal Protective Health Inspection Service fully investigates the most recent case of Mad Cow in that country. This legislation is important to our ongoing efforts to eradicate the possibility that Mad Cow disease will infect U.S. cattle herds. My legislation provides necessary enhancements to current Federal feed regulations. It reduces the chance that the riskiest materials, those most likely to transmit Mad Cow disease, cross-contaminate cattle feed or are accidentally fed to cattle. Specifically, my legislation would ban the inclusion of specified risk materials, or SRM, in all animal feed. Currently these materials are only banned from ruminant feed. As we continue to negotiate the reopening of export markets to U.S. beef, a comprehensive SRM ban is a prudent step. It is necessary to assure our trading partners that we have secured our domestic feed, and eliminated the risk of spreading Mad Cow disease through feed. As our domestic beef producers continue to suffer from the closure of our largest export markets, I encourage my colleagues to join me by cosponsoring this legislation--a measure that will strengthen our Mad Cow firewalls and our assurances to foreign beef consumers. I also hope that as the Senate Agriculture Committee conducts hearings next month into the appropriate Federal response to the most recent Canadian Mad Cow case, the committee will consider examining this legislation as well. The Senate should move toward its swift passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Electricity Needs Rules and Oversight Now, or ENRON, Act. This legislation does two simple--yet critical--things. The ENRON Act would amend the Federal Power Act to put in place a broad prohibition on all manipulative practices in electricity markets--rather than just round-trip trading, as included in last year's comprehensive energy bill; and it would specify that electricity rates resulting from manipulative practices are not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act. Many of my colleagues are, by now, familiar with the provisions of this legislation, as I have often described the circumstances that led me to propose it. While the Senate has been considering comprehensive energy legislation over the past few years, various investigations have unearthed Enron's ``smoking gun'' memos--detailing the company's schemes to drive up electricity prices--and other evidence leading the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to conclude that market manipulation was ``epidemic'' in western markets during 2000-2001. Recently, even more information--including audio files detailing Enron traders' conversations--has come to light. Meanwhile, the energy crisis continues to take a serious toll on American consumers and businesses: it's been estimated that, as a result, the West has lost $35 billion in domestic economic product--in other words, a 1.5 percent decline in productivity and a total loss of 589,000 jobs. Adding insult to injury, Enron has now sued a number of utilities throughout the country--for almost a $1 billion--attempting to collect penalty charges on inflated contracts, cancelled when the company went bankrupt. In essence, Enron is asking the same consumers it gouged to pay yet again. As I have discussed on the Senate floor many times, the Western market meltdown of 2000-2001 has had a profound impact on my state's economy, the pocketbooks and economic well-being of my constituents-- too many of whom have had to make the choice between keeping their heat and lights on and buying food, paying rent, and purchasing prescription drugs. In some parts of Washington state, utility disconnection rates have risen more than 40 percent. People just can't pay their utility bills. As my colleagues can imagine, what we have seen and heard since the height of the crisis--as we have learned about the market manipulation and fraud that took place in the Western market, while Enron energy traders laughed about the plight of ``Grandma Millie''--has added tremendous insult to substantial economic injury. Moreover, the Western crisis has brought to the forefront a number of very important policy questions about the kind of behavior that will be tolerated in our Nation's electricity markets, as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has continued to pursue its ``restructuring'' agenda. I believe we need strong leadership that will condemn the types of schemes used by Enron traders--manipulation tactics with infamous nicknames like Get Shorty, Death Star and Ricochet. We need to send a strong and unanimous message that these practices will not be tolerated in our nation's electricity markets. Next, we need to agree--as a matter of policy--that the victims of these schemes should not have to pay the inflated power prices resulting from market manipulation. The ENRON Act will make these commonsense principles the law of the land. I would like to thank the original cosponsors of this legislation, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman, the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, the senior Senator from Washington, Mrs. Murray, and the junior Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for joining me today. It is our hope that the Senate will move toward swift passage of the ENRON Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am joining my good friend the Senator from Texas, (Mrs. Hutchison), and the Senator from Tennessee, the Majority Leader, Mr. Frist, in legislation to permanently extend the State sales tax deduction. This bill aims to make permanent legislation that the Congress passed and the President signed into law last year on October 22, 2004 as a provision of the JOBS Act. It is a change to the tax code that I have worked to see enacted since coming to the U.S. Senate, and one I want to maintain. The JOBS Act reinstituted, for a period of 2 years, the ability of taxpayers to deduct State and local sales taxes just as they would State and local income taxes. Residents of States such as Washington that do not have income taxes, but have State sales taxes, had not been able to do this since the 1986. Make no mistake about it: permanently extending the sales tax deduction is a tax cut for Washington State taxpayers. Such a cut will strengthen our economy and fundamentally restore basic tax fairness. When the Federal income tax was first imposed in 1913, Congress allowed taxpayers to deduct State and local sales so they would not be taxed on once at the State level and then, again, at the Federal level in the same calendar year. In 1986, after 74 years of precedent, this tax equity abruptly ended. Taxpayers from States without income taxes were given a raw deal when Congress made a budgetary squeeze play and ended the tax deduction for State sales taxes. For States like Washington, where sales tax revenues are nearly 60 percent of the State budget, the impact is immense. The loss to Washington State taxpayers in 2004 alone, is estimated to be $500 million. Washington taxpayers waited 18 years to for the Federal government to correct the unique burden on them that amounts to requiring them to pay taxes twice on the same money. Now that the burden has been lifted for 2 years, with thanks to this body and the President, Washington taxpayers are now looking for--and must have--permanence in the tax code with regard to their ability to deduct State and local sales taxes from their Federal income tax. As I mentioned, this issue has been a primary one for me on behalf of the people I serve. In fact, when I became a member of this body in the 107th Congress, one of my first legislative acts was to cosponsor sales tax deduction legislation that at the time was introduced by the former Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson. In the 108th Congress, Senator Hutchison and I carried the banner as the lead sponsors of similar legislation, the core of which we saw enacted into law for a 2-year period. I am here once again in the 109th Congress with the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, on the heels of a victory for a two-year reprieve for our constituents, looking, now, for permanent equity in the tax code. I look forward to continuing to work with Senator Hutchison, as well as Senator Frist and others, in moving this sales tax deduction legislation forward in the coming months. Only by making the two-year law permanent will we be able to see to it that taxpayers from Washington State, or any other State, are not unfairly singled out to pay higher taxes. I urge prompt action on this measure.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I am introducing two pieces of legislation to help families save for their children's education. In today's global marketplace, ensuring access to high-quality education--starting in early childhood and grade school, moving on to college and beyond--is central in maintaining America's competitive edge. To make paying for school easier, I am introducing two pieces of legislation that would expand Coverdell Education Savings Accounts or ESAs: The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act. Coverdell ESAs are trusts created solely for the educational benefit of any child under the age of 18. Contributions to a Coverdell Education Savings account can be used toward a child's education from kindergarten through 12th grade, college, and even graduate school. All earnings in the account grow tax-free and can be withdrawn on a tax- deferred basis, if used for educational expenses. Currently, annual contributions to each Coverdell ESA cannot exceed $2,000. But this particular provision will sunset on 12/31/2010 unless Congress takes action to extend it, otherwise the maximum contribution will drop back to a previously set stipulation of $500. My bill, the Education for Students Act would expand the existing Coverdell ESA by permanently increasing the maximum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000. This bill keeps the current Coverdell ESA provision that investment earnings accumulate tax-free and withdrawals from the account are tax-exempt when the child uses the funds for school. My other bill, the College Savings Act would also permanently increase the maximum annual contribution to a Coverdell ESA to $5,000. Instead of anticipating future earnings, families would be able to deduct the amount they contribute to their education savings account from income. Rather than putting away money ad-hoc, both bills provide a financial incentive to save for college or other educational expenses. And since there is no limit on the number of Coverdell ESAs that may be opened for a child under age 18, parents have the flexibility to set aside money now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals, or even take on both options. The College Savings and Education Savings for Students Acts will help families plan for future educational expenses, paving a path to financial self-sufficiency. I understand that all families are different. Saving for college may be the last thing on a parent's mind, especially when their child is young and their family has significant financial needs. But just as fast as our children grow, so does the cost of tuition. Mounting prices for books and materials, plus room and board have made colleges and universities less affordable for most families. College is expensive. There are many parents whose children aim to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because the price of pursuing a higher education costs too much. If the College Savings and Education for Students Acts became law, families would have another powerful tool to help their children realize their educational dreams. By saving money early and often, families won't feel as hard hit by skyrocketing college prices because you'll know what's coming in and what's going out of these accounts. In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported on the national trends of rising college prices. The Center determined that if educational costs are unaddressed there will be adverse consequences for expanding students' opportunities to pursue a higher education and future career. This report found that over the last two decades, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private colleges have not only grown more rapidly than inflation, but faster than family incomes, increasing the share of family income that is needed to pay for tuition and other college expenses. From 1991 through 2001, tuition at four- year public colleges and universities rose faster than family income in 41 states, including my home state of Washington. The Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board reports that, over the last ten years, tuition and fees have far outpaced family income, increasing 89 percent compared to 51 percent in per capita personal income in my state. In comparison, the cost of most consumer goods increased an average of 20 percent during the same time. Per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this same period. As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. According to a recent study by the College Board, nonfederal borrowing reached $11.3 billion in 2003-04, up 39 percent over the previous year, and jumping nearly 150 percent in three years. Over $10 billion of these loans are private. Over the past five years, borrowing through banks and other private lenders has increased from 7 percent to 16 percent of education loan volume. Although borrowing is an acceptable way to pay for college, the financial consequences of high debt can still ensue, and students spend years paying back loans, undermining their ability to purchase a home or save for retirement. Additionally, college students on average graduate with about $3,300 in credit card debit alone. Concern about the increase in educational loan debt may cause students to spend more time working than attending class or to opt out of enrolling in college altogether. Moreover, the steepest increases in college and university tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship. Just in the past three years, our economy has experienced a loss of 1.8 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. Preparing America's workforce and keeping up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the 21st century economy is my priority. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, it is imperative that there are opportunities for individuals to fully take advantage of educational opportunities. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that six of the ten fastest- growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education. On average, a college graduate earns nearly 73 percent more than a typical high school graduate. In 2003, the average worker in the U.S. with a four-year college degree earned just under $50,000, over 60 percent more than the $30,800 earned by the average worker with a high school diploma, reports the College Board. Those with advanced degrees earn two to three times as much as high school graduates. In addition, society reaps the benefits of an educated workforce by improving quality of life and overall, the well-being of our communities. Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Saving for college early and often will help lift the pressures off of parents who are feeling the financial squeeze of increased tuition and fees. Because my family qualified for financial aid, I was able to work my way through college using Pell grant funding. But there are many families who do not qualify for Pell or other sources of financial aid. For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide necessary relief for the middle class. The purpose of education savings plans are to increase saving by increasing net returns. Today, parents can put up to $2,000 a year into a Coverdell Education Savings account. The actual contribution is not tax deductible, but all earnings in this account are free from taxes when they are withdrawn to pay for school. However, the current $2,000 annual limit on Coverdell contributions will be repealed in 2010 unless Congress acts to extend it. If we don't extend the contribution level, the maximum contribution will drop to $500. While the current tax benefit makes it easier to save for college, the Education Savings for Students Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000; making this change permanent ensures greater savings for families. By increasing the amount parents can put aside for their children's college savings, middle-income parents will be able to save more easily for their child's college education. Say, for example, parents start saving when their child turns eight years old. If they put away just $100.00 a month--at an interest rate of savings of four percent--by the time their kid turns 18, their account would have earned more than $12,400 in interest. Parents will save over $3,100 in taxes when that child is old enough to go to school. In addition to projected savings, parents also have the option to save now. The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct Coverdell ESA contributions from their taxes each year. Mr. President, both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings for Students Act are financial incentives for people to save by allowing families to deduct the amount they contribute and take tax-free earnings when their child is ready to go to school. These bills would further lessen the financial burden that parents bear by saving money early and often. Permanently expanding the Coverdell maximum contribution from its current threshold of $2,000 to $5,000 a year and allowing this contribution to be tax deductible is a common-sense savings vehicle that keeps future college costs from spinning out of control. Increasing contribution caps will make school more affordable at a time when a college education and advanced job training is becoming more and more important for economic success. I urge my colleagues to support these measures and I ask unanimous consent that the full text of these bills be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I wanted to let my colleagues know briefly of the reasons why I support the nomination of Carlos M. Gutierrez to be Secretary of Commerce. The Senate will vote on this nomination later today. I had the opportunity to sit down and speak with Mr. Gutierrez at length. While he has limited experience with matters handled and regulated by the Commerce Department that are important to Washington, such as fisheries, aerospace, and telecommunication, I was impressed by his general business acumen and management skills. I also found him willing to be personally engaged and to engage others on issues outside of his area of expertise. I appreciate his willingness to serve, and I look forward to working with him in the future.