Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as the U.S. Congress begins its 109th session, the Senate is performing its constitutional duty of providing its advice and consent on the President's nominees for cabinet positions. I take the Senate's responsibility to evaluate Presidential nominations very seriously. The process is important to ensuring strong leadership at the very highest levels of the federal government. It also provides an opportunity for Senators to have focused discussions with nominees on issues of particular importance to their respective constituencies. Today the Senate will confirm several nominees, including the nomination of Nebraska Governor Mike Johanns, the President's selection to succeed Secretary Veneman at the Department of Agriculture. While I am not a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, I am confident that Chairman Chambliss, ranking member Harkin and the rest of the committee's members conducted a thorough examination of Governor Johanns' record. I will support the committee's recommendation and vote in favor of his nomination. That being said, I have come to the floor today to express my thoughts on two specific agricultural issues that are important to Washington state's renowned beef industry: mad cow disease and country of origin labeling. On December 23, 2003, the first known case of mad cow disease ever discovered on U.S. soil was found in Washington State. The discovery sent a ripple effect across the country as U.S. ranchers watched in shock while our trading partners closed their doors to U.S. beef exports. An investigation was conducted and DNA tests confirmed that this cow likely originated in a herd from Alberta, Canada, but this was little consolation to consumers here and abroad who immediately began to question whether U.S. beef was safe to eat. While the exact cause of infection could not be confirmed, it is widely accepted by the science community that this cow became infected while eating contaminated feed before Canada had implemented its 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban. The Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture responded by announcing a number of new rules to strengthen protections over the human food. Most importantly, USDA and FDA banned specified risk materials, such as brain and central nervous system tissues from entering the human food supply. These materials have been shown to present the greatest risk of transmitting mad cow disease through cattle herds and to humans. Unfortunately, FDA failed to stand firm on its stated commitment to close four specific loopholes in feed regulations, measures that Acting FDA Commissioner Crawford made a commitment to do on January 26, 2004 and something that I believe was and is necessary to fully ensure the safety of U.S. beef. As we know, feeding ruminant parts back to ruminants represents one of the greatest risks of spreading mad cow disease and that's why the U.S., like Canada, implemented a rule to ban this practice in 1997. But existing feed loopholes, such as the poultry litter loophole and plate waste loophole allow for the possibility of ruminant materials to find their way into ruminant feed through cross contamination. To address this possibility, I introduced legislation during the 108th Congress, entitled the Animal Feed Protection Act, which would ban these materials from being used in any animal feed. This is important legislation that will strengthen existing feed rules to help mitigate the chance of cross contamination and ensure that ruminant materials are not accidentally fed to cattle. Although my legislation did not pass last year, I plan to reintroduce the Animal Feed Protection Act for consideration during the 109th Congress next week. U.S. beef is arguably the safest in the world, but even so, critical export markets including Japan and South Korea still remain closed to U.S beef exports. It is imperative that we do everything possible to prove to consumers abroad that the measures we have in place to prevent further cases of mad cow are robust and comprehensive. It was reassuring to hear Governor Johanns state, during his nomination hearing, that working to regain exports to Japan's market is priority number one for the U.S. beef industry. As I know the Governor understands, access to these markets is the key to bringing prosperity back to U.S. cattle producers, feeders, processors and beef packers. No one understands the importance of the Japanese and South Korean markets better than the ranchers in Washington state, who exported nearly $250 million of Washington beef to these markets in 2003. It is hard to overstate the extent to which Washington ranchers and the U.S. beef industry at large continue to suffer from the loss of these exports. Although progress has been made, recent discoveries of mad cow in Canada could present a major setback to our ongoing negotiations with Japan and South Korea if it is determined that the risk of mad cow in Canada has not been adequately addressed. Canada's discoveries of mad cow on January 2 and January 11 came just days after USDA announced a rule recognizing Canada as a minimal-risk region with regard to the mad cow disease. The USDA defends this decision by citing the results of a risk analysis that the agency conducted in 2004. That analysis examined the reliability and adequacy of Canada's mad cow firewalls in eradicating this disease in its herds. The agency's analysis determined that Canada had a robust and comprehensive system in place to address all of the necessary risks of transmitting mad cow disease and had implemented proper safeguards to ensure the safety of its beef. Thus, the USDA published a minimal risk rule in the January 4, 2005 Federal Register. That rule will authorize the reopening of our border to the importation of Canadian live cattle under the age of 30 months and other beef products from cattle over the age of 30 months beginning on March 7 of this year. However, Canada's latest discovery of mad cow on January 11 has raised serious questions regarding the possibility of non-compliance of feed regulations in Canada and questions as to the reliability of Canada's system to enforce its mad cow firewalls. Because the cow was determined to be less than seven years of age and thus was born after Canada implemented its 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban, many have speculated that non-compliance of feed rules represents the most likely source of this infection. In responding to this discovery, Administrator Ron DeHaven of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, announced that the agency would expedite sending a technical team to Canada to investigate the circumstances surrounding these recent discoveries. Last Friday, I sent a letter to Secretary Veneman and Governor Johanns requesting that this audit being conducted by APHIS inspectors be given time for a full and fair analysis. I think it is prudent for the USDA to provide the time and resources necessary to reach a determination as to the safety of Canadian beef before we reopen our border to its importation. I believe that USDA must reevaluate reopening the border should serious non-compliance of feed regulations or lapses in Canada's enforcement of mad cow firewalls be uncovered. Reestablishing the once dominant global market share enjoyed by U.S. beef producers is ultimately about product reliability and consumer confidence. It is vital that we address Canadian safety issues now, so that we can prevent running the risk of importing potentially unsafe products. While I understand that reopening the border is important to the Canadian beef industry, our primary responsibility is to ensure the safety of our food supply here at home. As world markets continue to converge becoming more and more interdependent, securing our domestic food supply requires much more work than it once did. We have an opportunity to aid our consumers by implementing mandatory country of origin labeling. I believe such labeling is important for two major reasons--first, the security of our food supply; and second, the American consumer's right-to-know where their food was produced. In 2002, I joined with my Senate colleagues in support of the farm bill, which, among other things, required that the USDA implement mandatory country of origin labeling standards by 2004. These provisions were supported by a wide margin of members in Congress, receiving nearly two-thirds support in the House. Even so, some who have fought the implementation of mandatory country of origin labeling every step of the way. Last year, Congress decided to push back the date of implementation of mandatory labeling until September 2006 on all goods except for fish and shellfish. The justification was that we needed to ``reconsider'' its economic implications. While I understand that labeling will come with increased costs, I believe that a failure to establish full accountability as to where our food is coming from could end up costing our consumers, businesses and government far more, should tainted beef or other unsafe products enter our food supply. Whether in the case of an outbreak of mad cow or a biological terrorist plot that infects food imported into our country, we need to have a definite and immediate system to target the source of our food and, if necessary, provide the American people a clear way to identify the food and stop consumption. The expansion of international agricultural trade has exponentially increased the options available to Americans as they peruse the shelves at their local grocery store. Imported foods are grown in widely varying conditions around the world, often in countries with drastically different regulatory contexts that allow the utilization of pesticides and growing practices which are banned here in the U.S. As I previously stated, I support labeling for the benefits that it will bring to ensuring safety, but also because I believe that American consumers have the right to know where their food comes from. We have no control over the methods utilized by other countries to produce their goods, but we can control whether or not foreign products maintain the information necessary for American consumers to make an informed decision. American consumers must be able to assess information on imported products to determine whether it is important to them. Today, consumers are increasingly faced with the daunting task of sifting through vast amounts of packaging and labeling to obtain the information most critical to them. Americans, for too long, have been knowingly exposed to foreign products without being provided with adequate information. The issue of labeling our agricultural products, including beef, comes down to this: Do we want consumers to have confidence--and do we want consumers to have choice? Even though public opinion surveys show that U.S. consumers want to buy american products, those consumers don't always have the information necessary to make that choice. I know that most consumers from my State would much rather buy and consume U.S. beef. This is because it is important to them that they are able to rely on the quality of the product and the safety of methods used in its production. It is important to Washingtonians that the beef they purchase comes from a cow that was fed under American standards for feed safety--beef that had to be processed under strong American standards and beef that has met a set of standards that allows consumers to feel confident of its safety and its quality. Some will argue that we already use USDA labels to indicate whether beef is produced in the U.S. however, the grade label from the USDA, which a lot of consumers might think means that beef was American made, is often stamped on packages that contain imported beef mixed in with just a small percentage of American beef. Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act, cattle and other bulk or non- processed products must be clearly labeled as to their country of origin. However, once those products are brought into the U.S. and value-added processing occurs, the law does not mandate that information indicating the country of origin be included on the final products that ultimately reach the consumer. This is an important issue that Congress must address. Families sitting at the dinner table should not have to wonder about what went into the food they eat. They should be provided the information to know what they are consuming. To put it simply, consumers deserve better accountability. Cattlemen in Washington State are proud of the beef they raise and are willing to trust their livelihood to the choices made by informed American consumers. The USDA stamp should represent the quality and safety of American products--not a mark that in some instances will mislead consumers into just thinking that they are buying American quality. A product's country of origin should be information that is included all of the way from the border to the store shelf. Last fall, Craig Grub, a Medical Lake rancher said: ``Consumers deserve to be able to make an educated choice. They should have implemented Mandatory labeling years ago.'' Producers like Mr. Grub support mandatory county of origin labeling because they understand and appreciate the importance of food safety and consumer choice in America. Regardless of whether we work through the legislative or rulemaking processes, I believe that the implementation of a greater standard of accountability over imported products is imperative to better ensure food safety for our consumers here at home. There is a lot of work that remains in order for this country to achieve this goal and I am confident that Governor Johanns is committed to working to this end. I will vote in support of his nomination. I am eager to begin working with him on reopening Asian markets to U.S. beef as well as to collaborate and promote opportunities for all U.S. agricultural products abroad.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today the Senate will consider and vote on the nomination of Margaret Spellings as the new Secretary of Education. I will support her nomination. Ms. Spellings is a capable leader, having been principally involved in shaping education policy on both State and Federal levels for over a decade. Her commitment to working on both sides of the political aisle and alongside our teachers and educators illustrates her dedication to strengthening our schools. In today's global marketplace, ensuring access to high-quality education--from a continuum that starts in early childhood to grade school, moving on to college and beyond--is central in maintaining America's competitive edge. To meet this goal, adequate funding of our public schools and post-secondary institutions is necessary to keep our students on the path toward achievement. I am confident that Ms. Spellings will uphold this responsibility as the head of the Department. Meeting the needs of learners at all ages and targeting approaches that prepare them to be successful is a priority. By investing in education, we are empowering our economy. I am eager to work with Ms. Spellings on strengthening our education system, making sure that every student reach his or her full potential and improving the quality of life for all families.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, we meet in historic session today. The twelfth amendment to the Constitution sets forth the requirements for casting electoral votes and counting those votes in Congress. The electors are required to meet, cast and certify their ballots and transmit them to the Vice President in his capacity as President of the Senate. With the exception of objections to the electoral votes from the State of Florida in the 2000 election, objections to an entire slate of votes from a State have been rare. But we have had one today, which gives us the opportunity to discuss and debate a very important issue for our country and for the citizens of my State--the issue of whether we have ensured that every vote is counted. I will vote to uphold the outcome of this most recent election. However, I think we have more work to do in the area of election reform, and I think the discussion we are having today is appropriate and overdue. In 2001, I supported the passage of the Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act. That law was designed to protect voting rights and ensure the integrity of the electoral system in our nation. I did so because I feel that making certain that each citizen's vote is counted and promoting public trust and confidence in our election process is crucial. The job is far from over. We may need to have additional hearings and we may need to take additional legislative action. There have been troubling reports from this most recent election. Representative John Conyers and the minority staff of the House Judiciary Committee have conducted their own hearings and investigations of instances of voter disenfranchisement, flawed or corrupted voting machinery, and inappropriate procedures for counting and recounting votes in Ohio. They have produced a compelling report itemizing and analyzing the irregularities. A 2-hour debate on the matter, when people across the country waited in 4, 6 and 12-hour lines to vote all over this country in November, is the least we can do. The debate we are having focuses attention on legitimate concerns that have been raised regarding the Ohio vote and count, and on broader concerns about America's inconsistent and sometimes flawed election processes which vary so radically from State to State that genuine equal protection concerns arise. I will certify the election results, because I don't think we should sacrifice the greater good of the continuity of Government at this time. We need to govern. But, what we should be doing is using this debate to get this Congress, and this country, talking about the steps that must be taken to ensure that American elections provide a true representation of the people's will.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today the Senate expresses its condolences over the recent tsunami disaster. Like most Americans, I watched in horror over the holidays as a tsunami battered thousands of miles of coastline across South Asia and Africa. The damage left in the wake of this disaster is almost overwhelming, and I feel a sense of personal and professional obligation to do whatever can be done to help those in need. Though the grim reports have varied in the days following this disaster, it is becoming clear that nearly 150,000 people have already lost their lives, and hundreds of thousands of others are in grave jeopardy because of the damage inflicted by the tsunami. Still more families are searching for loved ones, hoping for any news regarding their family members' whereabouts. In trying to guide a humanitarian effort through the aftermath of this tragedy, the United States and the larger international community must help these countries face longer term obstacles of disease, the destruction of basic infrastructure, complete damage to coastal economies and other fundamental hardship. America has itself been the victim of great tragedies such as this, and indeed it appears that thousands of Americans living or traveling in South Asia and Africa have themselves been affected by this horrible natural disaster. My heart goes out to all these victims of the tsunami. It is time for the world, particularly those nations that are most fortunate such as the United States, to move rapidly with a relief and recovery effort that is worthy of the size of this tragedy. I am encouraged that our Government, in cooperation with private sector charities and the business community, has now begun to focus on what can be done to help the affected countries. This tragedy provides America with an opportunity to show that we can lead the world, not just when it is our military that is needed, but when we can offer our generosity and expertise for a massive humanitarian effort. So many nations affected by this tragedy are looking to America for help and we have an opportunity to provide the world our leadership. In addition to it being the right thing to do, it is clearly in America's national interest to be a leader in helping these countries to recover. In this spirit, I wholeheartedly support the administration's pledge of $350 million to the relief effort. I also commend the involvement of former Presidents Clinton and Bush in helping to organize a private relief effort. I would also like to commend the work being done by our private sector, particularly by nongovernmental organizations and the business community, to help those in need. This charitable work is quintessentially American, and these efforts are something for which we can all be proud. I also want to share with my colleagues that we should be aware that the generosity of the American people in response to this disaster extends to the knowledge we have to share with the world regarding the monitoring and reporting of oceanic and climatic events. There is important research and monitoring already being done by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on tsunami events, work that involves the University of Washington in my State. Scientists are learning how better to monitor patterns or impending developments in our oceans so we can be prepared for future possible events. We do not always focus on the good work being done by NOAA, until something tragic like this tsunami occurs. Congress has an obligation to people on our coasts to fund NOAA and see that it can do its job well, and we should work to fulfill that obligation. In the United States, NOAA's National Weather Service operates two tsunami warning centers, the Pacific Tsunami Warning Center in Hawaii and the West Coast/Alaska Tsunami Warning Center in Alaska. In the event of a tsunami, the Centers will issue local tsunami advisories to the Emergency Managers Office of each potentially affected State. The decision to evacuate a coastal area rests with each responsible EM. The Seattle Post Intelligencer reported that the current U.S. network consists of six deep-sea sensors in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, and near the equator off the coast of Peru. In addition to the six tsunami buoys, the warning system takes advantage of existing tidal monitoring stations and USGS seismic monitoring and reporting capabilities. The NOAA official in charge of the system described the current configuration as the ``bare minimum'' needed for adequate warning. There are plans to expand the system to 20 tsunami buoys in the next five years, 10 of which will be placed in the Aleutian Islands. NOAA is estimating one-time costs of $8.7 million and recurring costs of $8.5 million to enhance the current system. NOAA also runs a Tsunami Research Program out of the Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory in Seattle. The objective of the Tsunami Research Program is to improve warning guidance, hazard assessment, and implementation planning. The Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, a partnership between NOAA and UW, has also worked with the Tsunami Research Program on hazard assessment modeling. PMEL has also developed instruments it has named tsunameters. With six deployed in the middle of the Pacific since 2001 in waters 2.5 to 4 miles deep, the tsunameters can detect the perturbations in water pressure as a tsunami passes above. When it detects something, it sends a signal by sound waves to a buoy on the surface. The signal is relayed to a satellite and then back to Earth to tsunami warning centers in Hawaii and Alaska, a process that takes only 2 minutes. No significant tsunamis have yet occurred in the Pacific for the tsunameters to detect, but they have prevented a false alarm. In November 2003, a magnitude 7.8 undersea earthquake occurred near the Aleutian Islands, spurring officials to issue a tsunami warning. When the wave passed over a tsunameter, they saw it was small and canceled the warning. In conclusion, I again express my condolences and those of Washingtonians to those who have lost family members in this tragedy. The Senate should do all it can to help all those who face a long and difficult cleanup.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator for clarifying these important matters.

Ms. CANTWELL. As the principal sponsor and architect of the substitute amendment approved by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, what was the intent about the meaning of the substitute amendment and the agreement it would approve with respect to those three issues?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I say to Senator Campbell, as chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee upon which I serve, I appreciate his leadership in helping this important bill become law. I support S. 2605 and believe it codifies a fair and equitable settlement of Snake River Basin water rights in Idaho. However, I am concerned that the bill currently pending before the Senate may have inadvertently altered the rights of my constituents and obligations of the downstream States of Washington and Oregon in the application and implementation of Federal environmental laws. Therefore, I have a few questions to ask regarding the effect of section 4 of S. 2605 and the agreement, as expressed in the Mediator's Term Sheet, that S. 2605 would approve. Specifically, I am concerned about (1) whether some inference might be drawn from the language in section 4(a) of the act that, by approving, ratifying and confirming the agreement, Congress has in effect altered the obligation of Federal agencies to consult under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act; (2) whether the act might be interpreted to require that Federal agencies implement the agreement without taking into consideration the interests of other affected States; and (3) whether the act or the agreement might be construed to alter any obligations that the parties might have under the Clean Water Act, particularly in relation to the protection of federally approved State water quality standards of downstream States. I noticed that these three specific issues were not expressly addressed in the report of the Committee on Indian Affairs that has been filed and accompanies the substitute amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to address the legislation we passed earlier, but I say to the Senator from Texas, it has been a pleasure working with him and the senior Senator from Texas on issues that we are going to talk about, the sales tax deduction for individual States. But I also say that I know this side of the aisle very much believes in pro job-creation activities. As somebody who has been in the private sector and seen the job creation that can happen in the private sector, no, I do not believe Government creates jobs, but I do believe Government has an investment strategy, that we are a partner with the private sector; and a good investment strategy then allows for capital to flow to people who need it most. I guess I would say that this bill is not the perfect solution, and not what 51 Members on this side of the aisle would have drafted, as there are certainly things that have been overlooked. I think we have heard about them, including Senator Landrieu's language about a $15,000 tax credit to employers that would help them maintain their employees who have been called up by the National Guard and Reserve on their payrolls. As the Senator from Maryland has articulated, another item is the unemployment benefits that would have worked to benefit many Americans while they can't find jobs, because jobs the job growth we have been promised has not happened. Unemployment benefits are, therefore, something to help keep economic stimulus in our communities. Another is the fact that when we talk about community colleges and job creation, we really are not keeping pace with the training and retraining dollars from the previous years' budgets to actually help make this transition. I would just point out that while we are having this discussion today about where we go further with the policy, it is a fact that this side of the aisle definitely believes in investing in the human infrastructure, not just in the corporate side of the equation but in individuals, for unemployment, for job training, for our National Guard, for people who need the help and support to continue to do their jobs. But let me address, if I may, the key issue I wanted to talk about; which is, the issue of tax fairness. It is ironic. My colleague talked about this side of the aisle and tax fairness, the two issues about which I am going to talk. The first one was actually implemented under a Republican administration and a Republican Senate. That was in 1986, not allowing the State of Washington and six other States in the Union to be able to deduct their state and local sales taxes in lieu of state and local income taxes from their Federal income tax. Now, since I have been in the Senate, since 2001, I have worked to make the deduction of state and local sales taxes from their federal tax liability permanent for my constituents. When I entered the Senate, I first worked with the Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson, who had introduced legislation, and then later with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison from Texas with whom together we have introduced legislation in the 108th Congress to reinstitute the state sales tax deduction. Washington and Texas have known a long time that we needed to restore tax fairness to the people of these States. And while we have passed, this afternoon, legislation that restores that fairness temporarily for the next 2 years, we need to continue to work to make it a permanent resolution for people in those States. Restoring that sales tax deduction will help strengthen our economy. What people do not realize is that when the 16th amendment to our U.S. Constitution was ratified, in 1913, it said you could make the way for a Federal income tax, and Congress allowed taxpayers to deduct State and local taxes so that income would not be taxed twice. That was what the exemption was about. So why, in 1986, after 74 years of a precedent, was this tax equity abruptly ended? As I said, I am just pointing out to my colleague, it was actually done by a Republican Senate, a Republican administration. I am saying that only because we need to move forward in correcting these policies, as the previous speaker said, and work together on commonality. The taxpayers from the States that were given this raw deal--I believe because it was a budgetary squeeze, not based on, I think, really valid principles--it was a great impact to States such as mine, which has just over 60 percent of our State revenue coming from sales tax--about 61-point-three percent. So for us, that is a huge impact. When you are asking constituents not to be taxed twice by what they paid to the State and what they pay to the Federal Government, not being able to deduct that was an inequity in our tax laws. We know that for Washington State this could mean as much as $421 million that would be saved by taxpayers. I am sure the number is higher in many other States around the country. But it also means job creation. The Economic and Revenue Forecast Council in our State says that it would create as much as 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, and it would be about a 50-cent stimulus for every $1 spent in Washington State. So for an economy that has been hard hit by this recession and continues to have one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation, this is the kind of tax policy we think helps us grow our economy and create jobs. But the bottom line is that after this period of time, after 18 years, Washington State is finally--instead of getting a raw deal-- going to get a fair deal, in the fact that residents are going to be able to deduct their sales tax from their Federal income tax obligation. So I think that is the kind of job-creation stimulus and fairness we need to be focusing on as we look at these tough choices. Another issue that is bringing tax fairness to our State and to many other rural parts of our country is an issue that Senator Craig Thomas and I worked on, the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Program. That also was passed this afternoon as part of this legislation. What this bill did was to focus on the fact we are trying to get and continue to push rural health care needs. We have a deficit in some parts of our country in getting doctors into rural communities. We have had a great program on the books for a number of years. I am proud that a previous Senator from our State, Warren Magnuson, actually created the National Health Service Corps Program. What it did was, it said to physicians, if you will go practice in rural communities, we will either give you a scholarship for doing that or we will give you loan repayment assistance. Well, I can tell you, in talking to physicians throughout my State, the cost of repaying those loans can start off a career in hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt. Somewhere along the process we ended up taxing the National Health Service Corps scholarship and loan money to these physicians, as the IRS saw the payments as taxable income. In fact, later Congress realized: Well, that was not such a great idea of taxing, so we will give more money to the National Health Service Corps to pay for those taxes and then tax that money on top of it. We ended up paying 40 percent of the program in taxes instead of creating the opportunity for those physicians. So this program will help get about 67 percent more physicians into rural health care in America. The last thing I would like to say is that as we continue to move through the rest of how we finish up this year, we want to continue to give an opportunity to make sure the National Guard and Reserve men and women in our country are well taken care of. I am proud the Senate passed back to the House a bill that also included Senator Landrieu's language about helping the National Guard. Washington State is a State that is greatly impacted, and we certainly need to help and support taking care of our National Guard. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about increasing educational opportunities by improving a tax-free way to save for college. A college education is invaluable in today's workforce, requiring new skills and a post-secondary education to stay competitive in our global economy. That's why I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help make paying for college easier: The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act both expand current Coverdell education savings accounts by permanently increasing the annual contribution amount to $5,000. The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct from income the amount they contribute to their education savings account. The Education Savings Act keeps the current conditions under Coverdells that investment earnings grow tax-free and withdrawals from their account are tax-exempt when their child goes to school, but permanently increases the minimum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000. Both bills provide a financial incentive to put away money for college where parents have the ability to save now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals. It's incredible how fast kids grow. One day they're in kindergarten, and the next day they're packing up and leaving for college. What's even more incredible is that higher education costs grow just as fast as they do. I understand that parents have a lot to worry about, especially when their children are young. But with rising college costs, parents must also be concerned about how to pay for their child's college education. Mounting tuition costs and 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 have aimed to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because of rising costs. In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported national trends which--if remain unaddressed--will have 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. And, per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this period. As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. In 1981, loans accounted for 45 percent and grants for 52 percent of federal student financial aid. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent. Unfortunately, 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. It is my priority that we prepare our workers for the jobs of today and the careers of the future. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, we need to make college more affordable. We must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy. In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 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. Workers with a college degree make 75 percent more than those without. A college education pays tremendous dividends--not just to individuals, but also to their entire communities. On average, a one- year increase in a metropolitan area's educational level raises wages by three to five percent. Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Let's face it, we're not all going to pay for college by winning the lottery. 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. For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide a needed 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 Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 and 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 more easily save 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 offer families the ability to deduct their contributions each year---- Both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings 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, 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.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about increasing educational opportunities by improving a tax-free way to save for college. A college education is invaluable in today's workforce, requiring new skills and a post-secondary education to stay competitive in our global economy. That's why I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help make paying for college easier: The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act both expand current Coverdell education savings accounts by permanently increasing the annual contribution amount to $5,000. The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct from income the amount they contribute to their education savings account. The Education Savings Act keeps the current conditions under Coverdells that investment earnings grow tax-free and withdrawals from their account are tax-exempt when their child goes to school, but permanently increases the minimum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000. Both bills provide a financial incentive to put away money for college where parents have the ability to save now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals. It's incredible how fast kids grow. One day they're in kindergarten, and the next day they're packing up and leaving for college. What's even more incredible is that higher education costs grow just as fast as they do. I understand that parents have a lot to worry about, especially when their children are young. But with rising college costs, parents must also be concerned about how to pay for their child's college education. Mounting tuition costs and 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 have aimed to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because of rising costs. In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported national trends which--if remain unaddressed--will have 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. And, per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this period. As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. In 1981, loans accounted for 45 percent and grants for 52 percent of federal student financial aid. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent. Unfortunately, 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. It is my priority that we prepare our workers for the jobs of today and the careers of the future. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, we need to make college more affordable. We must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy. In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported 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. Workers with a college degree make 75 percent more than those without. A college education pays tremendous dividends--not just to individuals, but also to their entire communities. On average, a one- year increase in a metropolitan area's educational level raises wages by three to five percent. Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Let's face it, we're not all going to pay for college by winning the lottery. 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. For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide a needed 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 Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 and 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 more easily save 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 offer families the ability to deduct their contributions each year---- Both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings 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, 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.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. Methamphetamine, meth, use is growing exponentially in parts of our country and is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. We must act aggressively to attack the meth problem with a long-term commitment of resources or we will soon have a national drug crisis on the scale of an epidemic. Meth is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug. Individuals who use meth risk becoming addicted to this life-destroying drug with just one use. Meth use has ruined the lives of many people who prior to their addiction to meth were successful contributors to our society and our economy. Meth use triggers an avalanche of other problems for addicts' families and our communities. The use of meth is often linked to child abuse and the destruction of families. It contributes substantially to the perpetration of violent crimes, particularly burglary and crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, including identity theft. The stories I have heard about meth users are horrible--parents so focused on feeding their habit that they forget their children are right there with them, hungry, and without any love or care. Users become aggressive, violent and unstable. Often, the kids end up users as well. Sadly, our children are discovering meth, and the results will be devastating. According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in ten high school students have used meth. The statistics are clear: the problem is bad, and it's getting worse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that while the proportion of teens who know users of LSD, cocaine, and heroin has dropped sharply from last year, the percentage of teens who know a user of methamphetamines has risen from 12 percent in 2003 to 15 percent this year. The devastation to our kids' lives is hitting our rural communities first. The Columbia University researchers also found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas. And meth is not just a health and social problem; it is also an enormous environmental problem. There are two types of local meth labs: so-called ``super-labs,'' which are capable of manufacturing large volumes of methamphetamines and clandestine labs set up by users to manufacture small amounts of the drug for personal use. These clandestine labs can be set up in the woods, in hotel rooms or even in the back seat of a car. They can be set up anywhere, but are usually located where there is little traffic or population. These hazardous ``labs'' can go unnoticed for years, but they produce major chemical hazards and pose severe fire risk. Meth production generates extremely hazardous byproducts, such as anhydrous ammonia, ether, sulfuric acid, as well as other toxins that are volatile, corrosive, and poisonous. When these substances are illegally disposed of in rivers, streams and other dump areas, explosions and serious environmental damage can and does result. Our State and local environmental agencies are responsible to cleanup these hazardous sites and it is taking a toll on their resources. The use of meth is spreading rapidly from the western region of the United States across the rural Midwest and to the east. The spreading availability of methamphetamine is illustrated by increasing numbers of meth seizures, arrests, indictments, and sentences. And those numbers are rising across the country. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine is widely available throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and is increasingly available in the Great Lakes and the Southeast. Similarly, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Working Group reports that, in 2002, methamphetamine indicators remained highest in West Coast areas and parts of the Southwest, as well as Hawaii. Meth abuse and the crimes associated with it are spreading in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Texas, as well as the East Coast and mid-Atlantic regions. This problem, once perceived as a ``western state'' problem, has become a nationwide problem, growing at an extraordinary rate. My State has shown that a cooperative effort--law enforcement working side-by-side with those handling cleanup, intervention, treatment, child and family support, drug courts and family drug courts, and education--is effective at addressing this problem. Thanks to the Washington Methamphetamine Initiative and the ``Methamphetamine Action Teams,'' multi-disciplinary teams situated in each county across the State, meth production was cut back by 25 percent last year. Washington State has dropped from second in the Nation to sixth in the production of meth. The comprehensive, holistic approach my State has taken to combat meth is working well, and I believe that our program can be a model for the national fight. By making intervention, treatment and family support as important as arrests and prosecution, we are effectively overcoming the secondary problems that meth creates by addressing the root causes, not just the social symptoms. By taking this approach we are not simply growing prison populations and pushing the problem to regions not previously impacted by meth, but attacking the growth of the use of this terrible drug. We in Washington State have also learned that laws restricting the sale of large quantities of precursor drugs such as ephedrine make it more difficult for users to produce meth, and this tactic has reduced the number of clandestine labs in the State. This approach to fighting meth use has been very successful, but it takes money. And although there has been an explosion in the use of meth, Federal funding has been cut. Each year, States with a growing meth problem are required to go through a politicized process seeking Federal funding through the earmark process. And each year, the funds are being cut. These challenges to our States mean only one thing: we need to make funding to combat meth permanent. Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of meth. That is why I am introducing the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. This bill will create a supplemental grant to augment the Department of Justice's Byrne Formula Grant Program to provide block grants to help States confront their meth problems. Under my bill, States will be able to apply for a formula grant if they meet two prerequisites: the State must have a comprehensive, long term plan to address methamphetamine use, manufacture and sale; and the State legislature must commit to enacting laws to limit the sales of precursor products (the commercially available products used to make meth, such as ephedrine). Where a State has met these two requirements, that State will be eligible to receive a Federal formula grant. States have discretion as to how to use the funds. The activities funded may include arrest, lab seizures and clean up, child and family support services, community based education, awareness and prevention, intervention, treatment, Drug Court and Family Drug Court, community policing, the hiring of specially trained law enforcement, State and local health and environmental department support, and prosecution. The Confronting Methamphetamines Act also provides for planning grants, $100,000 per State, so States can develop long-term strategies to address meth. We have seen in Washington and in other States that comprehensive plans to address all aspects of meth--from use to manufacture to sale--have the best and most efficient results. Through this provision, I want to encourage States to consider the long-term situation when they take the initial steps in combating meth. To assure that the best practices to confront meth deployed in our local communities are shared across the country, my bill requires the U.S. Attorney General to collect data, to establish a national clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and to provide technical assistance to States or local agencies. Like the Byrne Formula Grants, distribution to eligible States will be based on State population. The supplemental allocation to an eligible State will be no less than the base amount of $250,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining funds allocated to the other eligible States on the basis of the state's relative share of total U.S. population. The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2005 and 2006, elevating the funding to $200 million for the subsequent three years, assuring that the funds are available as the meth problem grows and more States become plagued by the problem of meth. I have received letters supporting this legislation from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Washington State's Governor's office, representing State law enforcement, environmental protection, health and human services and the Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative, and the Pierce County Alliance, essentially the epicenter of Washington State's response to methamphetamines. These letters reflect the level and breadth of concern for our law enforcement, drug addiction care providers, the courts and environmental protection agencies. We have to give a strong signal to the State and local governments that we recognize the meth problems that they are facing, we are committed to support long-term comprehensive strategies to confront the problem, and will assure availability of substantial federal funds to help confront this startlingly rapidly growing problem. This legislation assures the funding and continuity of Federal support desperately needed by our State and local governments. It assures that States have the opportunity to develop a long-term comprehensive strategy to combat meth, and gives those on the front lines in this battle the flexibility to use the federal dollars as they see fit, consistent with their long-term plan. I urge the Senate to support this bill and plan to work aggressively with the other body to bring it into law as promptly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the four letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. Methamphetamine, meth, use is growing exponentially in parts of our country and is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. We must act aggressively to attack the meth problem with a long-term commitment of resources or we will soon have a national drug crisis on the scale of an epidemic. Meth is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug. Individuals who use meth risk becoming addicted to this life-destroying drug with just one use. Meth use has ruined the lives of many people who prior to their addiction to meth were successful contributors to our society and our economy. Meth use triggers an avalanche of other problems for addicts' families and our communities. The use of meth is often linked to child abuse and the destruction of families. It contributes substantially to the perpetration of violent crimes, particularly burglary and crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, including identity theft. The stories I have heard about meth users are horrible--parents so focused on feeding their habit that they forget their children are right there with them, hungry, and without any love or care. Users become aggressive, violent and unstable. Often, the kids end up users as well. Sadly, our children are discovering meth, and the results will be devastating. According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in ten high school students have used meth. The statistics are clear: the problem is bad, and it's getting worse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that while the proportion of teens who know users of LSD, cocaine, and heroin has dropped sharply from last year, the percentage of teens who know a user of methamphetamines has risen from 12 percent in 2003 to 15 percent this year. The devastation to our kids' lives is hitting our rural communities first. The Columbia University researchers also found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas. And meth is not just a health and social problem; it is also an enormous environmental problem. There are two types of local meth labs: so-called ``super-labs,'' which are capable of manufacturing large volumes of methamphetamines and clandestine labs set up by users to manufacture small amounts of the drug for personal use. These clandestine labs can be set up in the woods, in hotel rooms or even in the back seat of a car. They can be set up anywhere, but are usually located where there is little traffic or population. These hazardous ``labs'' can go unnoticed for years, but they produce major chemical hazards and pose severe fire risk. Meth production generates extremely hazardous byproducts, such as anhydrous ammonia, ether, sulfuric acid, as well as other toxins that are volatile, corrosive, and poisonous. When these substances are illegally disposed of in rivers, streams and other dump areas, explosions and serious environmental damage can and does result. Our State and local environmental agencies are responsible to cleanup these hazardous sites and it is taking a toll on their resources. The use of meth is spreading rapidly from the western region of the United States across the rural Midwest and to the east. The spreading availability of methamphetamine is illustrated by increasing numbers of meth seizures, arrests, indictments, and sentences. And those numbers are rising across the country. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine is widely available throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and is increasingly available in the Great Lakes and the Southeast. Similarly, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Working Group reports that, in 2002, methamphetamine indicators remained highest in West Coast areas and parts of the Southwest, as well as Hawaii. Meth abuse and the crimes associated with it are spreading in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Texas, as well as the East Coast and mid-Atlantic regions. This problem, once perceived as a ``western state'' problem, has become a nationwide problem, growing at an extraordinary rate. My State has shown that a cooperative effort--law enforcement working side-by-side with those handling cleanup, intervention, treatment, child and family support, drug courts and family drug courts, and education--is effective at addressing this problem. Thanks to the Washington Methamphetamine Initiative and the ``Methamphetamine Action Teams,'' multi-disciplinary teams situated in each county across the State, meth production was cut back by 25 percent last year. Washington State has dropped from second in the Nation to sixth in the production of meth. The comprehensive, holistic approach my State has taken to combat meth is working well, and I believe that our program can be a model for the national fight. By making intervention, treatment and family support as important as arrests and prosecution, we are effectively overcoming the secondary problems that meth creates by addressing the root causes, not just the social symptoms. By taking this approach we are not simply growing prison populations and pushing the problem to regions not previously impacted by meth, but attacking the growth of the use of this terrible drug. We in Washington State have also learned that laws restricting the sale of large quantities of precursor drugs such as ephedrine make it more difficult for users to produce meth, and this tactic has reduced the number of clandestine labs in the State. This approach to fighting meth use has been very successful, but it takes money. And although there has been an explosion in the use of meth, Federal funding has been cut. Each year, States with a growing meth problem are required to go through a politicized process seeking Federal funding through the earmark process. And each year, the funds are being cut. These challenges to our States mean only one thing: we need to make funding to combat meth permanent. Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of meth. That is why I am introducing the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. This bill will create a supplemental grant to augment the Department of Justice's Byrne Formula Grant Program to provide block grants to help States confront their meth problems. Under my bill, States will be able to apply for a formula grant if they meet two prerequisites: the State must have a comprehensive, long term plan to address methamphetamine use, manufacture and sale; and the State legislature must commit to enacting laws to limit the sales of precursor products (the commercially available products used to make meth, such as ephedrine). Where a State has met these two requirements, that State will be eligible to receive a Federal formula grant. States have discretion as to how to use the funds. The activities funded may include arrest, lab seizures and clean up, child and family support services, community based education, awareness and prevention, intervention, treatment, Drug Court and Family Drug Court, community policing, the hiring of specially trained law enforcement, State and local health and environmental department support, and prosecution. The Confronting Methamphetamines Act also provides for planning grants, $100,000 per State, so States can develop long-term strategies to address meth. We have seen in Washington and in other States that comprehensive plans to address all aspects of meth--from use to manufacture to sale--have the best and most efficient results. Through this provision, I want to encourage States to consider the long-term situation when they take the initial steps in combating meth. To assure that the best practices to confront meth deployed in our local communities are shared across the country, my bill requires the U.S. Attorney General to collect data, to establish a national clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and to provide technical assistance to States or local agencies. Like the Byrne Formula Grants, distribution to eligible States will be based on State population. The supplemental allocation to an eligible State will be no less than the base amount of $250,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining funds allocated to the other eligible States on the basis of the state's relative share of total U.S. population. The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2005 and 2006, elevating the funding to $200 million for the subsequent three years, assuring that the funds are available as the meth problem grows and more States become plagued by the problem of meth. I have received letters supporting this legislation from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Washington State's Governor's office, representing State law enforcement, environmental protection, health and human services and the Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative, and the Pierce County Alliance, essentially the epicenter of Washington State's response to methamphetamines. These letters reflect the level and breadth of concern for our law enforcement, drug addiction care providers, the courts and environmental protection agencies. We have to give a strong signal to the State and local governments that we recognize the meth problems that they are facing, we are committed to support long-term comprehensive strategies to confront the problem, and will assure availability of substantial federal funds to help confront this startlingly rapidly growing problem. This legislation assures the funding and continuity of Federal support desperately needed by our State and local governments. It assures that States have the opportunity to develop a long-term comprehensive strategy to combat meth, and gives those on the front lines in this battle the flexibility to use the federal dollars as they see fit, consistent with their long-term plan. I urge the Senate to support this bill and plan to work aggressively with the other body to bring it into law as promptly as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the four letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work and perseverance in trying to get the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission passed and their accommodation of many Members with various amendments. Obviously they have been working long before this time period, through the August recess and since we have come back, and now we are pushing towards the final stages. I thank the managers of the bill for including a provision in the bill, a Cantwell-Sessions amendment dealing with the Visa Waiver Program and closing a loophole that I call the Ressam loophole. That is a loophole that allowed a terrorist to go from Algiers to France to Canada and then load up his car with explosives and head to the U.S.- Canadian border at the State of Washington with plans to set off those explosives, potentially, at LAX Airport or perhaps somewhere along the way of the west corridor. What the amendment did was to basically say to those who are our partner countries that the United States wants to make sure that people coming into our country on visas meet certain biometric standards so we know who people are. If we actually knew Mr. Ressam's true identity when he left France to go to Canada, he would have been stopped at the Canadian border. He could have been stopped earlier in the process if we actually knew who this individual was. So what this Cantwell-Sessions amendment did, and, again, I thank the managers for adding it, was to help us identify the types of technologies that we hope our partner visa waiver countries also adopt for their biometrics on visas allowing people into their country. To put it simply, our borders will only be as strong as our partner countries' and as they adopt standards. The last thing we want to do in the United States is to have a process by which we are more sure of people we are giving visas to, only to have, then, individuals who are looking for ways to get access to the United States to go to Mexico or Canada or France or Germany and then find their way to easy entry into the United States by creating a new identity. The estimates are that there are millions of passports that have been lost or stolen and that individuals easily create new identities. But if our partner countries in the Visa Waiver Program, such as Mexico, France, Germany, also create biometric on their visas for people coming into their countries, we will have a safer process of understanding and stopping terrorists at their point of origin as opposed to continuing to allow them to travel around the globe, creating new identities or possibly getting easy access to our neighboring countries and then easily sneaking across U.S. borders. I thank the managers for their hard work and diligence on this issue and for working to accommodate so many Members on what are very challenging issues. We have done great work on making our borders more secure since 9/11. We have put resources there. We have tightened our programs. We have worked on the US VISIT implementation. But we need to continue to understand that our security will only be as good as the security of our partner nations, working in this battle to fight terrorism around the globe. I very much appreciate the managers being included in that. If I could say, I am also pleased that the conference report on the JOBS bill is moving. It seems to be progressing. While we are working to finish up this 9/11 report and finish up the legislation that implements it, I am hopeful we will be successful in passing the FSC/ ETI conference report before we leave for this recess that is scheduled for this Friday. That is very important legislation to help companies that want a level playing field on the trade front, helping large companies in my State or exporters such as Boeing and Microsoft--there are many more--to get a level playing field. There is also tax fairness in this JOBS bill for Washingtonians and seven other States that have not been able to deduct their sales tax from the Federal income tax. I am glad to see that recision is in the bill. I hope we can move forward this week to give the fairness back to those States that have been unjustly penalized on that for about the last 18 years. While this 9/11 legislation is moving through, I hope we are also successful in moving the JOBS bill through and that we can continue to work diligently on that process. As I see no other Members who are ready to offer amendments, I will say one more word of thanks to the incredibly hard work that is going on in the State of Washington by the U.S. Geological Survey. Many people realize that there is an imminent eruption of Mount St. Helens about to take place. We have seen the ash and steam of several smaller events occur in the last several days. But because of the investment this country has made in the Department Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, we have so much more information at hand today. In 1980, we heard the final cry of a U.S. Geological Survey worker who said, ``Vancouver, Vancouver, this is it.'' Then he ended up losing his life to the explosion, as did 57 other residents of the Northwest. The impact of that volcanic explosion was so significant it impacted various cities such as Yakima and Vancouver. Today, because seismologists, geologists, meteorologists, and vulcanologists also have been working together, we have much more data and we have been able to advise the larger community on the hazards we are facing with another eruption of Mount St. Helens. I thank the men and women who are doing terrific work in informing all of us so we can make great plans, so that aviation, transportation, and the health and security of the emergency management system can do their jobs, because we have good science and information. I thank the managers of this bill for their hard work and perseverance on an issue that many times during this debate didn't seem to be very decisive, as Members have many different ideas about how we approach terrorism and what our country needs to do to harden our targets and to improve our intelligence operation. But I want to thank the diligence of these Members because they are doing the work to understand the details of this legislation. They have been doing that work for the summer while we were out on recess, and what they did is work to understand these amendments in detail. I appreciate their adoption of the Cantwell-Sessions amendment, which I do believe will help us not only make U.S. borders more secure but make our partner countries' borders more secure and stop terrorism at the point of origin. I thank the managers for their help and support for the passage of this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, the first national museum dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of the life, languages, literature, history, and arts of the first residents of the Americas. This museum works in collaboration with the native peoples of the western hemisphere to protect and foster their cultures by reaffirming traditions and beliefs, encouraging contemporary artistic expression, and empowering the Indian voice. And since it was designed primarily by Native Americans, it is truly a first-hand look at both the history and future of indigenous American culture. Fittingly, it is not a traditional museum, but rather a unique, living space, located in close proximity to nature. The building's design reflects the solar calendar and equinoxes, with an eastern orientation and entrance. Historical native stories are shared through the representation and interpretation of Indian cultures as living phenomena throughout the hemisphere. The NMAI is rich with imagery, connections to the earth, and historical meaning. Washington state can be particularly proud of its tribes, which are well-represented. For example, an exhibit about original Native Treaties includes the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which allowed the Makah Tribe to take whales from ``accustomed grounds and stations.'' An exhibit about the contemporary lives of American Indians contains items from our very own Yakama Nation including a carton of Chief Yakama apples, a jar of Broken Spears pickled asparagus and a poster for the Yakama Nation Beauty Pageant. Native Americans from other parts of the country who now call Washington State home also played important roles in designing this stunning new space. Johnpaul Jones, an architect of Choctaw and Cherokee heritage who lives in Seattle, was one of four project designers, and helped design and shape this museum to make it a dynamic place for all Americans to explore the contributions of American Indians to our culture. Preston Singletary, a Tlingit artist who also lives in Seattle, contributed a piece to the exhibit ``Our Universe,'' which focuses on American Indian cosmology and the spiritual relationship between the tribes and nature. His piece, a sand-carved glass, depicts the northwestern coastal legend of the ``Raven Steals the Sun.'' Today, as we welcome this wonderful new museum, let us also remember that as a nation, we must do more to fulfill the promises our country made to our native peoples. As a Senator who represents 29 tribes and a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I will continue to work to see our nation meet these obligations, and to celebrate the contributions of Native Americans to our great Nation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, last week, Washington State and the Nation lost a dedicated civic servant who gave much of his life to serving the public when former Senator Brock Adams passed away following a long battle with Parkinson's disease. Today, his family and friends are gathered to remember his life and legacy--and it is truly a long legacy--from fighting for civil rights to protecting the environment to standing up for people suffering from AIDS. Brock made his commitment to public service clear early in his life by serving as student body president at the University of Washington. It was not long afterwards that he became the youngest United States attorney in the entire Nation. Over the course of his career, Brock would go on to serve the people of Washington State in the House of Representatives and ultimately in the Senate. He also served the country, as President Jimmy Carter's Secretary of Transportation. His accomplishments in that role are epitomized by his work to help create Amtrak. Brock will be long remembered for hard work on behalf of Washington and the Nation. My thoughts and prayers are with his wife Betty and the rest of his family during this sad time.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry, located on the University of Washington campus. The center has made numerous contributions to the world of manufacturing, the University of Washington, and the progress of its students that I wish to recognize today. In 1984, CPAC was initiated by the National Science Foundation as an Industry/University Cooperative Research Center with the specific mission of supporting the restoration and continuous improvement of U.S. industry by enhancing globally competitive manufacturing. Through the discovery and development of new analytical technologies for use in the manufacturing process, CPAC research has developed new measurement tools to provide continuous real-time measurement needed for industrial and environmental processes. The information gathered with these tools is used to implement process optimization and control, thus enabling product and process quality management, environmental protection, pollution prevention, crisis alerting, and worker safety. For 20 years, award-winning faculty, research scientists, postdoctoral associates, visiting scientists, and graduate students have gathered at CPAC to collaborate on research projects. As a result, over 100 graduate students have been granted their Ph.D.s while working with CPAC, making immediate contributions to their employers because of their exposure to the challenges of industry. Through partnership with leaders in industry, and the sharing of research funding between the University of Washington, leading global corporations such as the Boeing Company and Systematix Controls, several national laboratories, and the National Institute of Standards & Technology, CPAC has produced more than 20 patented inventions, meeting the demand for advanced technology in the aerospace, petroleum, chemical manufacturing, pharmaceutical and food industries. Streamlining the manufacturing process is critical to meeting the ever-changing demands of the world's economy. Long-term economic trends--including technological advances and increasing globalization-- will continue to increase the demand for greater efficiencies, and improved processes. The fact that the majority of original industry partners continue to work with the CPAC to improve their products is a testament to the relevancy and quality of the work conducted at the center. I congratulate the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry on their 20th anniversary.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what so many Americans are thinking about as they turn on their television today, and that is the 9/11 Commission report that is being issued by many of our former colleagues and partners in trying to address the security needs of our Nation. I am sure many Americans are going to want to know from this 9/11 report, is it going to result in us getting off our orange alert? Is it going to help us in providing better security across America? One of the things we have to think about is the fact that this report now needs to be put into legislative action by this body. I thank the Commission, including Governor Keane, former Congressman Hamilton, and former Senator Slade Gorton, for their contribution to this report and their hard work. The voluminous report has a lot of recommendations, but I would like to call out two or three of those recommendations that are particularly important for us as a body to address when we return in September. First and foremost is the need for us to focus on international cooperation. We in the Northwest learned that lesson very well when Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border with a car full of explosives on his way to LAX Airport. Many people in America know that story and know that a good customs agent was able to stop Ressam and confiscate those goods, and that act was never perpetrated on American soil. We also know after that, 9/11 did happen. So the question for us in America is, What are we going to do to make sure we have good international cooperation? What is interesting about the Ressam case is Mr. Ressam started his efforts in Algiers, was successful in getting into France, then successful in creating a new identity and getting into Canada. Even though that was an illegal entry into Canada, he was able to remain in Canada and then create a Canadian passport and birth certificate and try to gain access to the United States. As I said, the route he took through several countries to try to get to Port Angeles, WA, to start his journey shows the need we have in this country for international cooperation as it relates to our visa program and our visa standards. This is something we have seen a delay in in the last several years and something we need to pay particular attention to in the Senate to make sure this visa standard program gets implemented and gets implemented as soon as possible. While we in the United States can have a visa entry program based on a biometric standard, that standard will only be as good as the standard that is then adopted by Canada and Mexico, our European partners, our Middle East allies, and various other countries around the world. By that, I mean if Mr. Ressam had entered France on a biometric standard which showed, perhaps with fingerprints or facial recognition, who Ahmed Ressam was, the various times he tried to perpetrate a false identity to get into the United States, we would be able to track that individual. We know this is very important because we know that of the hijackers on 9/11, many of them had various trips back and forth to the United States. While we want to continue to have good international commerce with many countries and have people travel to the United States, we need a better security system with our visa standard, and we should make a top priority of getting such international cooperation based on biometrics. I can say the same for international cooperation on port security. Washington State, being the home to many ports, needs to focus on the fact that cargo containers come in every day into the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, and various parts of Washington State. What we need is not to wait until the last minute for cargo containers to get into the Seattle area to find out whether they have explosives or whether the containers have been tampered with, but to have point of origin cooperation with countries all over the world to make sure that security system is deployed at the time the cargo leaves its port. Here are two examples, one of human deployment of people coming to the United States and another of goods and services in which international cooperation is essential. That is why I take to heart the recommendation on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report, the executive summary saying that: Unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning against Islamic terrorists across foreign-domestic divide with a National Counterterrorism Center. What I believe the report is saying is we have to have the cooperation of our allies and the global community in fighting terrorism and doing so in a cooperative effort if we are going to be successful in the United States. Secondly, while I think the report emphasizes the focus of a flat organization, from my 2 years on the Judiciary Committee and review of the incidents of 9/11 through the FBI and their organization and changes that have been made to that organization, one thing that is very clear about the 9/11 report is that a flat, decentralized organization and network of information must be accomplished. While the report does talk about consolidation and the central focus, the important thing to understand is we are facing an asymmetrical threat by terrorists. We are not facing a superpower. We are not facing a well-oiled, well-heeled organization with a lot of support that we can track, detect, and analyze on a large-scale basis; it is very decentralized, with a lot of information flowing from a lot of different cells through different parts of the international community. What is important about that is if we are going to face that asymmetrical threat and meet that challenge, having a large bureaucracy facing an asymmetrical threat of lots of cells presents a challenging problem. That is why it is very important, as Special Agent Coleen Rowley pointed out to many of the people in the intelligence community and the FBI community, the information that existed in different FBI offices throughout America but was not shared, was not pieced together with the other intelligence information by the CIA about potential people entering and exiting the country, needs to be pieced together in a flat organization. Critical to this report and our success is for us to monitor the new organizations and agencies, such as Homeland Security, the structure of the FBI and CIA, and any new structures coming out of the 9/11 report to make sure we are keeping a flat organization. That flat organization is about getting access to as much information as possible. Just as the Intelligence Committee report released by my colleagues in the last 10 days showed and just as this 9/11 report shows, the third thing we need to do is make sure we use the information we acquire and put much more focus and analysis behind that. While that sounds simple and it sounds like something that can be easily forgotten, I remind my colleagues that in 1998, ADM David Jeremiah, under a CIA governance order study, was asked the question: Why did the CIA miss India's testing of a nuclear bomb? Why did we as a country not really understand that was happening? Well, the No. 1 recommendation from that report was not enough analysis, and we had a culture that was not really assessing the 21st century threats to our country. That is a report that was done in 1998 about a particular part of intelligence, in a particular part of the world, that missed something. We had a report that basically is saying the same things the 9/11 report is saying today, that information and analysis are critical to our success on international efforts at understanding information and potential threats or use of weapons of mass destruction. To me, it is very important that we take to heart the fact that we need more analysts, and how that analyst structure is going to work. We live in an information age. You can say that terrorists, in their decentralized structure, are going to create much more information about their prospects, their attention to different projects, their communication with cells across the globe. It is this information that we need to acquire, put together, and have analysts working on, on an ongoing basis. It is safe to say we need a dramatic increase in the number of analysts that we need to recruit into Government, new processes to put this information into a network, and access and assess it on an ongoing basis. I believe this is going to be a very hard challenge for us in Congress because we will see it as something that an agency is assigned to do, and we will forget about the challenges that face each of these agencies as they change their culture and change their structure. We must keep in mind we are facing a threat of a very decentralized nature. To face a threat of a very decentralized nature we must build organizations and teams of people, including analysts, who also think in a decentralized way. The report also talks about technology and the role that technology can play. I am a big proponent of technology in this information age. Something like a biometric standard on fingerprints and identification can be helpful. The report goes into a great deal of detail about implementing those at borders, at airports, at various other facilities. Yes, I want to expedite the speed and flow of individuals in and out of the country and have the United States continue to remain a great place where people want to visit. But in adopting these technology solutions, we need to work hard, as the 9/11 report says, to make sure the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals are protected. The United States has its privileges. The right to privacy is one of those. So we need to work on this recommendation in the report with that in mind. I think the structure within the FBI and Homeland Security needs to have someone, as these recommendations are implemented, who can--as databases are created, as information is assessed--help create the safeguards that are necessary. But that should not impede us from working on an international basis to make sure that information about terrorist threats is shared through numerous countries in the world, and shared on a systematic database form with the United States. That is where I believe we have been lacking since 9/11. We have had a visa program and standard that we set in the PATRIOT Act and other bills as an objective. Yet we have failed to execute those. We should use this report today to continue our sharpened focus on getting that standard implemented so we can be sure the same people, like the 9/11 attackers, are not moving in and out of the country. This report is so critical for us now to join together on these specific recommendations. We must not continue to focus on the past but focus on what we can do to get off of orange alert. It is important that we look at international cooperation, organizations, resources for analysts, new technology, and protecting civil liberties. But as I think about this issue, I think about the significant threats we face from those asymmetrical forms. Yet the results of those could be very catastrophic. That is why we need to get this program implemented. I look to my colleagues, when we return in September, to keep away from what now has been an analysis of the past and look forward to implementing these solutions as quickly as possible, giving Americans better security in the future. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, for the 29 tribes in my home State of Washington, and the many tribes throughout the West, this is a troubling report. To be clear, I am not opposing Mr. Myers's nomination simply because we disagree on issues. I have voted for many of this President's nominees whose views on a range of issues differ from my own. I have had ideological differences with many of the nominees put forth by this administration, yet I have voted to approve the overwhelming majority of those candidates. I do not believe that a difference in a nominee's views alone justifies voting against him or her. But I cannot assent to a nominee who I do not believe will uphold the law when it conflicts with his ingrained political philosophy. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Myers is such a nominee. Mr. Myers has written, ``Judge Bork's judicial philosophy was well within the parameters of acceptable constitutional theory, worthy of representation on the Supreme Court.'' More importantly, Mr. Myers indicated his support of ``judicial activism'' in his discussion of Bork's views: ``Interpretivism does not require a timid approach to judging or protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights . . . interpretivism is not synonymous with judicial restraint and may require judicial activism if mandated by the constitution.'' A Pacific Northwest newspaper, the Oregonian, summed up Mr. Myers's nomination this way: ``Myers has overwhelmingly looked out for industry interests while antagonizing a vast array of conservation groups, tribes, labor unions and civil-rights organization.'' I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, over the last 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has approved 198 of President Bush's judicial nominees: more than were confirmed during President Reagan's first term, more than confirmed during the first President Bush's term, and more than were confirmed during President Clinton's second term, when the other party controlled this body. The reality is that the Senate has made remarkable progress approving this President's nominees. Today, there are fewer Federal judicial vacancies than at any time in the last 14 years. This is true because both sides of the aisle have been able to work together to identify talented, qualified, experienced nominees-- nominees who can put their own ideologies aside and uphold the law. We have a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington state. Members of Washington State's legal community, the White House, and my colleague Senator Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. I am proud of our work. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees--including two who were confirmed just last month--and I believe it is a sound model for other States. Unfortunately, the nomination before us today--that of William Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--represents a break with this spirit of cooperation and fairness. As a Senator who represents a State in the Ninth District, I feel that I must explain why I have concluded that I have no choice but to oppose this nomination. Other Senators have spoken about Mr. Myers' inexperience. I agree that the nominee before us has limited experience. He has never been a judge, he has never tried a jury case, he has never served as counsel in any criminal litigation, and he has tried just twelve cases to verdict or judgment. I am troubled that this administration believes such a candidate is an appropriate choice to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals, just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. But I would like to spend my time discussing some other problematic aspects of this nomination. The decision this body makes on the nomination before us will have a long-lasting impact on the States of the Ninth Circuit. For one thing, the person appointed to fill this seat on bench will receive a lifetime appointment. For another, the Ninth Circuit decides on many cases that can have dramatic impacts on land management policy and environmental protections. Decisions about how to use our natural resources and public lands can have irrevocable consequences. With this in mind, I am concerned that this nominee has compared the federal government's management of public lands to ``the tyrannical actions of King George'' over the American colonies. More troubling in his view of the Commerce Clause. In the face of decades of established law, Mr. Myers has argued for a more limited interpretation of this key portion of the Constitution, which underpins much of Federal environmental law. Rhetoric is one thing; radically re- interpreting the Constitution is another. I am disappointed that the Senate has spent so much time debating a judicial nominee with such a poor record on protecting the environment, instead of taking up legislation that could actually improve the environment. And in addition to public lands issues, the Ninth Circuit often considers cases regarding Native American issues. Yet here, too, Mr. Myers's record is troubling. In one case, Myers reversed existing policy of the Department of the Interior, without seeking public opinion or input from affected Tribes. His decision, which relied on his interpretation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, allowed a mining company to contaminate a large area of land in California that was sacred to the Quechan tribe. But when a Federal judge reviewed the case--the only time a Federal judge reviewed Myers' work--he concluded, ``The Solicitor misconstrued the clear mandate of FLPMA.'' It is for reasons like this that the National Congress of American Indians--which has never in its history opposed a Federal judicial nominee--opposes this nominee. Together, 560 tribes have spoken up and voiced their strong concerns with his nomination. The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, which represents tribes in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and the nominee's home State of Idaho, has also never previously opposed a judicial nominee. But they believed it was necessary to step forward and oppose Mr. Myers. As they noted in a letter to me and other Northwest Senators, ``We do not take this step lightly--but when a nominee has acted with such blatant disregard for federal law and our sacred places, we must speak out.'' I ask unanimous consent that the Affiliated Tribes' letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about our legislative priorities, and something I think this body needs to address before we adjourn next week. It is the issue of the reliability standards for our electricity grid and the fact that I think we are still putting the grid in jeopardy by not adopting reliability standards. Even Enron activities in California, by its own admissions, jeopardized the reliability of the western electricity grid. That is certainly unacceptable. We need to have in place rules that explicitly ban market manipulation and rules that make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable. In the documentation that has now been acquired through the Enron task force, federal agencies and organizations such as the Snohomish County Public Utility District, which is trying to get out of lawsuits and manipulated contracts that Enron is pursuing against it, it became clear that Enron continued to manipulate the market until its bankruptcy. Even in one scheme, called Get Shorty, Enron discussed in detail, and I quote from their comments and documents: This [Get Shorty] is obviously a sensitive issue because of reliability concerns. It would be difficult to justify our position if the lights go out because ancillary services were not available. The reason these services were not available is because we were selling them without actually having them in the first place. In the Enron documentation and memos shared among various employees in the company about ways to scheme and make more money, they very well knew they were manipulating the market. They did not have these services, but sold them anyway at a higher cost, and thereby jeopardizing reliability. Another summer is upon us and we have yet to take action on legislation that would move us forward in ensuring the integrity of the electricity grid by protecting consumers from these market manipulation schemes and putting regulatory standards in place for reliability. Next month, in fact, will mark the first anniversary of the blackout in the Northeast and the Midwest that caused basically 50 million consumers and businesses in the Northeast and Midwest to lose power. In some cases that power was lost up to 4 days. That blackout could have been avoided. When you think about not just the inconvenience to consumers but the fact it cost our economy $4 to $10 billion as a loss of economic activity, it is outrageous we are not stepping up and passing electricity reliability standards legislation as a stand-alone bill before we recess for the summer. We know why the blackout occurred. A few months ago, in April, the U.S.-Canadian power system outage task force issued a report and the Department of Energy, together with the Canadian counterpart, convened a panel of experts that concluded this was something we could avoid if we put reliability standards in place. In fact, the No. 1 recommendation of that task force, which was reported to various Members of Congress and various committees, is to ``make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable, with penalties for non- compliance.'' That was the No. 1 recommendation out of that task force that investigated what happened in the Northeast and what happened in the Midwest. So the question is, Why are we not passing reliability legislation before we adjourn, to make sure there are mandatory enforceable rules in place? After the task force's 7-month investigation was complete, Congress has been given an opportunity, many times on the floor, to pass reliability standards. Yet we have not done that. I think some of my colleagues are trying to get a larger energy bill passed first. There are many aspects of the comprehensive Energy bill this Senator would support and many I would not. But I guarantee you this, when this electricity reliability standards bill comes to the floor and is voted on, it will have unanimous support. So the question is, why we are not peeling off something as important as reliability standards as we approach the summer's hottest months, to make sure businesses and utilities know they will have electricity supply and blackouts will not occur. What if the lights go out again this summer? What if they go out in August? God forbid they go out in September as many of my colleagues will be in New York doing their business and having meetings. We know various Western States now, such as in Arizona, are putting in place programs to reduce demand because they have concerns. In a BusinessWeek article, FERC Chairman Pat Wood basically described the summer as ``a rosary bead summer'' in California because he has concerns that region is going to have some close calls. We also know, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council's own Reliability Assessment for 2004, New York City ``might be susceptible to reliability problems'' again this summer. So folks across the country could be affected by the cascading outages that happen to them or in nearby areas. In the words of Michael Gent, who is the president of the North American Electric Reliability Council: Whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed, I believe that the blackout would not have occurred. Why is that? Because right now, while consumers may think there are standards by which supply needs to be on the grid and reliability maintained, there are actually no mandatory rules. What happened in the Midwest and in New York was the fact that people did not have the supply available at a time that the demand was really there, or the transmission available to move the power. So consumers were caught in the dark--many senior citizens, individuals in hospitals. A whole variety of things occurred that were very unfortunate circumstances. Now, we in the Northwest know this situation all too well. It was actually my predecessor, Senator Gorton, who first proposed this legislation and actually passed it out of this body, and then it languished in the House of Representatives. We waited again in 2002 and 2003 to get this legislation moved forward through the process. So I think it is critically important before this body adjourns next week that we pass the reliability standards legislation and implement it. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236 So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 465, S. 2236, a bill to enhance the reliability of the electric system; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their position because we are not, in the next 5 to 6 days of legislative action, going to get a comprehensive energy bill. But we can get an energy reliability standards bill passed and put in place, and send a message sent to electricity providers across the country that there are going to be reliability rules and standards in place. We cannot continue to hold hostage good energy reliability legislation for a comprehensive bill when consumers are at risk. We cannot continue to deny the reports across the country that more blackouts are coming. We need to act. Now, Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to expand on some of the other news and events that relate to this energy policy. As my colleague mentioned an energy bill, I certainly would like to get an energy bill that did something to prevent market manipulation, or even just a stand-alone bill that would prevent market manipulation. We in the West have been astounded by the lack of response by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the news and information about markets being manipulated. I do not mean there is speculation about manipulation; I mean there are documents that have now been uncovered through organizations such as Snohomish County PUD; they are actually signed documents by various day traders at the Enron Trading Portland office that showed exactly how the trading schemes worked. While those utilities harmed will continue to pursue their case legally, it is absurd that the Federal energy regulators who are supposed to do their job in protecting consumers are failing to do anything. Basically they are the policemen on the watch and they are letting the crime continue to be committed. When I say ``continue to be committed,'' I would like to submit for the record an article that was recently published that shows the chances that these schemes might still be continuing in the State of Texas. The Texas Public Utilities Commission has an ongoing investigation, and there are a couple of companies down there that are actually pursuing this case. Some of the same Enron traders who were involved in the Portland office in these schemes have now moved on to other companies. CBS and others now have audiotapes showing that some of these Texas power giants might still be manipulating the market in the same ways that Enron did. So the question is, When are we going to stand up and do something about this? I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article entitled ``Accusation: Trader Recordings Show TXU Schemed to Spike Power Prices.''

Ms. CANTWELL. The issue is really before us in the sense that we need to continue to push the Federal regulators to do their job, the Federal regulators being the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They have failed to do their job. We had an Enron collapse and scandal in which markets were manipulated, shareholders were conned, books were cooked, and various aspects of this investigation and prosecution are taking place. My hat is tipped to DOJ in their effectiveness in pursuing this case against various Enron employees, including their recent indictment of Ken Lay, even though that is a process in which Mr. Lay has his opportunity and will have his day in court. But I take great offense to Mr. Lay's PR campaign in which he goes on television saying that all that happened in California was California's fault, that it was wrong for them because they deregulated without proper supply. Well, I think it is very clear there has been market manipulation as shown by the documents that are being provided, and it is a question of whether the Federal regulators are going to do their job. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post from this week in which the paper criticized the Federal energy regulators for not doing their job. I think that is what we need, more attention to show that those Federal regulators have not had the bright light of day shown on them and that they are failing to do their job.

Ms. CANTWELL. The article basically says: . . . FERC's overly cautious approach to the Enron aftermath . . . has damaged the regulatory commission's standing and even its ability to oversee market regulation in the future. In California, Nevada, Washington state and elsewhere, the acronym FERC has become a byword for impotence. Its job was to protect consumers, the argument goes; it didn't protect consumers. . . . So I think we need to continue to push. In fact, the editorial goes on to say: . . . Congress should quickly act to give FERC the powers it needs. . . . We must do our job in continuing to protect consumers from this market manipulation. When we have evidence now that shows it has taken place, and we cannot get the cop on the beat to investigate, and we now have documentation and suspicion that it may still be going on in other parts of the country, Congress needs to do its job. Just as we did with the SEC in passing new accounting rules, we need to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does its job on regulating wholesale power rates, making sure that they are just and reasonable and that the manipulation stops. I yield the floor.