Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and I send it to the desk.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am sure there are Members who, if they had the time, would come and speak, but I think to make this process move as smoothly as possible, I see no need to continue to wait for Members of the Energy Committee to show up. If Members are here who want to speak on behalf of the amendment, one way or another----

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman, Hollings, Jeffords, Dorgan, and Feingold be added as cosponsors to this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think the Kelliher letter and the report we have seen by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on price manipulation in western markets is the evidence we need. We have all admitted this manipulation has taken place. What is not clear to the American public is if we plan to do anything about it or if we plan to prohibit it in the future. I think we need to be clear. The language I have offered in this amendment, as I said, is very simple and straightforward. It is that way because we want to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does not misinterpret the intent of Congress, that Congress needs to say manipulating prices cannot be just and reasonable or in the public interest, and their job is to basically protect electric ratepayers from these kinds of manipulation. I am not going to continue to take up the time of my colleagues who have heard about this amendment and have had an opportunity to review it. I urge them, as part of our further understanding of where the Energy bill is, that it is being set aside. This is the opportunity before us to make sure we take a stand against market manipulation and we need to make it clear to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which seems to be unclear about what authority they currently have, and to make it explicit that market manipulation cannot be tolerated. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I have not taken up a significant amount of time because I think Members have been educated on this issue, so I would suggest we just go ahead and vote on the issue and move ahead.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the time to discuss this issue. Some colleagues may wonder why we are talking about energy legislation and market manipulation on the Agriculture appropriations bill. As my colleague from California pointed out in the previous amendment on derivatives legislation and market manipulation prevention, this was part of an agreement that the Western Senators worked out when we were discussing the Energy bill prior to our August recess. The fact that we were willing to move off that debate on a variety of amendments was because we had a commitment for a chance to have further discussion on important issues that impacted the economies of Western States. That was the agreement made at that time, and today is the moment in which Senator Feinstein and I both have our opportunities to discuss what we consider very important legislation and to get the Congress on the record and make sure the Senate takes a stand against market manipulation. Many Members know a lot has happened since the time of discussion of these issues about the energy crisis and what we should do. But we should be clear about the sequencing of things that the United States now knows and understands. The Senate knows and understands that Enron has admitted market manipulation. They have executives who have said, yes, these contracts were manipulated and prices were faulty. We have a report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so thick it is hard for me to hold in one hand that goes through a variety of issues in relation to market manipulation in which FERC found there was not only manipulation, but a demonstration for the need of explicit prohibitions on this kind of harmful and fraudulent market behavior. That is exactly what this amendment tries to address. The amendment I have offered, and Senator Bingaman and others have offered, says something very basic and simple that probably many Americans, and I guarantee many Washingtonians, assumed would already be in a Federal statute such as the Federal Power Act. The amendment simply says that manipulation or manipulated contracts under the Federal Power Act cannot be just and reasonable. Some of my colleagues may have remembered an earlier amendment where we prescribed some solutions. This amendment has been compromised and offers no specific remedies to the legislation but is specific in saying that market manipulation, in fact, is not something that can be just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act and it is not the kind of activity that the Commission should consider as lawful activity. Most of my colleagues would say that manipulation and fraud surely has no place in the Federal Power Act; sanctioning those activities is somehow legal. But the absence of that prohibition in the Federal Power Act is leaving some doubt in people's minds that, in fact, manipulation is unlawful. I bring that up because Washingtonians--as Ohio, Indiana, Nevada, California, Utah--have been suffering from high energy costs related to these manipulations of Enron contracts. Not only will they be stuck with paying those Enron contracts over a long period of time, but my State, the State of Washington, had utilities as much as a 50-percent rate increase because of Enron's contracts, and we will be stuck with those contracts over 5 years. While Ken Lay remains uncharged, or at least not paying any dues for the crime he perpetrated, and he keeps the millions of dollars of money that he has gotten from Enron, my ratepayers in Washington State for the next 5 years will end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts. Not only will we end up paying the high prices of those manipulated contracts, but the utilities in my State and other States--Nevada, California, Oregon, some of the other Midwest States I mentioned--have tried to basically deal with Enron. They have been basically sued by the company. So not only is my ratepayer stuck with paying those high utility bills, they are actually trying to fight the legal battle against Enron, which is turning around and suing them. My amendment does something very simple today. It basically says in the Federal Power Act that for the prospective issue of making sure it is clear to people throughout the country that the Senate does not tolerate market manipulation. I have to say we have done great work on this issue as it relates to the Securities and Exchange Commission, and as it relates to making sure that accounting practices have been changed. But nowhere have we been specific in saying that market manipulation is an unlawful practice and cannot be just and reasonable under the Power Act. That is simply what we are trying to say today. Why is that needed? I have a letter I circulated to my colleagues from one of the newest nominees to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, a Republican nominee who spent many hours in the legislative branch working under Energy Secretary Abraham and spent time in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to whom I posed this question as a nominee before FERC because I wanted to understand where FERC nominees were going in the future. Mr. Kelliher responded exactly where I think the input needs to be to the Senate. He said: I agree with much of what you have said. I agree that the markets subject to manipulation cannot operate properly and there is an urgent need to proscribe manipulation of electricity markets. He further states: You have correctly noted that there is no express prohibition of market manipulation in the Federal Power Act and have proposed legislation to establish that prohibition. This is a critical point. The Federal Regulatory Commission only has the tools Congress chooses to give it, and Congress has never given the Commission express authority to prohibit market manipulation. I believe the time has come for Congress to take that step. That is an exact quote from a letter by the FERC nominee Joseph Kelliher from the administration saying, ``You want me to be a FERC commissioner? I am telling you exactly what I think about the FERC rules. And I am telling you we need the language that is in this amendment.'' I ask unanimous consent that letter be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, this amendment is one more addition to the great underlying Fair Credit Reporting Act that would establish a process where business records can be accessed by consumers whose identities have been stolen. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, my colleague from Wyoming and I tried to accommodate Members who were here in the last few minutes, trying to get several amendments adopted. I want to spend a few minutes going into more detail about the Cantwell-Enzi Restore Your Good Name Act that has been incorporated into the Fair Credit Reporting Act. I would first like to thank the chairman and ranking members of the committee for their strong support of this underlying bill that has been incorporated, along with the last amendment that we just voted on by voice a few minutes ago, dealing with business records. It was roughly 2 years ago that the chairman of the Banking Committee and I spoke at a national platform for the attorneys general of America to address the issue of privacy and some of the biggest challenges to privacy at that time. We both made known our view that this country needed stronger legislation in the area of identity theft. I commend the chairman and the ranking member for their strong step forward, a really critical step forward, to protect Americans from what is the fastest growing crime in America--identity theft. Unfortunately, even though the Senate passed the Cantwell-Enzi legislation last year, the House failed to act on it and the number of victims has continued to grow. In fact, 9 million Americans have been the victims of identity theft. This underlying bill incorporates some of those good ideas that my colleague from Wyoming worked so hard on in the Banking Committee and that we worked through the Judiciary Committee to pass. I certainly commend my colleague, Senator Enzi, for his dedication to this issue. Consumers in America are going to be more protected because of his efforts. It has been a pleasure to work with him on these challenging issues, to make sure those protections are put in place. The underlying bill that we have passed changes the framework by which consumers can now restore their good name and protect their identity. It does so, first and foremost, as Senator Enzi and I suggested, by formulating an affidavit process. So many people in America are victims of identity theft. But I can tell you this: it is not a crime for which you can call 911 and get immediate response. The biggest problem, once you are a victim of identity theft, is proving that you are in fact the person whose identity has been stolen. I like to say that, in the case of the perpetrator who steals your television set right out of your living room, chances are that he is somewhere in the neighborhood. But the crime of identity theft could involve someone anywhere in the country, or for that matter, outside the United States, working with a ring. So part of what we are trying to do, first and foremost, is to give victims and law enforcement tools to help victims reclaim their identity. The affidavit process that now must be accepted by business owners and credit agencies as proof that you are a victim of identity theft is the first step in making sure that your credit record is corrected and perpetrators are prevented from continuing to ruin your credit. Second, the credit provisions that Senator Enzi was successful in getting added in committee represent a tremendous step in solving the problem that so many Americans face when their identity is stolen--that the perpetrators continue to pose as them, running up large credit bills. In the case of a constituent I recently met in Washington State, the perpetrator who stole the constituent's license succeeded in buying five different vehicles. My constituent has continued to be a subject of investigation by law enforcement as she has tried to prove that it was, in fact, her identity that was stolen, that she was the victim. So a critical part of this legislation is the fact that individuals will be allowed to go to a credit agency and get that information blocked so that their good name is restored. The amendment that we just adopted deals with another aspect of this problem, which is getting access to business records. Law enforcement in the State of Washington have been very successful at dealing with crimes of identity theft because identity thieves are often criminals who are involved in larger activities. There is a high correlation between people who are involved in identity theft--who use that stolen identity to get access to cash and resources in the State of Washington--and people who are involved with methamphetamine production. These criminals are involved in both drug activity and identity theft. With this amendment, police can now get access to business records. Any victim, or law enforcement official acting on behalf of the victim, will have access to business records within 20 days after the victim provides identification, an affidavit and a police report to the business. This gives consumers a real tool to correct the harm caused them by this crime. This is a very fundamental part of this bill. The last aspect of the identity theft bill that is part of the amendment we just agreed to deals with the statute of limitations. In the 2001 Supreme Court case of TRW v. Andrews, the Court ruled that the statute of limitations in these cases runs for 2 years from the time the crime is committed. But what we have found is that some victims of identity theft don't even realize they are victims until a year or 2 years after the identity theft has occurred. The statute of limitations therefore impacted the ability of victims to get justice. The underlying amendment we just agreed to extends the statute of limitations to give victims of identity theft 5 years from the time the crime was committed. This underlying bill with the amendment we just agreed to represents a critical first step in dealing with one of the most important issues I think we will deal with in this information age, which is the issue of privacy. While this body has tried to deal with this issue in myriad ways by protecting the financial and health records of individuals, and by making sure that either opt-in or opt-out legislation have been cleared with consumers, I think we have much more work to do in the area of privacy. But you can be sure the Fair Credit Reporting Act before us today and the Cantwell-Enzi amendment and language adopted with it take a very positive step in dealing with one of the biggest privacy threats to Americans today--identity theft. With these tools, law enforcement and individual consumers whose identities have been stolen will have the tools to make the process of reporting and resolving identity theft go smoother. While some may have said businesses would oppose the underlying amendment, or some of the features of the Cantwell-Enzi amendment, businesses have seen record losses of $22 billion a year from identity theft, and they have joined in this effort to make sure we pass strong national legislation. I again thank Senator Sarbanes and Senator Shelby for their hard work, and certainly Senator Enzi for his effort and his stewardship in making sure we have good legislation in the process that can go on to passage and that will better protect consumers in America. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I call up the Cantwell amendment and ask for its immediate consideration.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, while I plan to vote for this bill because it funds a host of programs critical to our Nation and my home State of Washington, I rise today to voice my grave concerns over a provision that would prevent the Department of Interior from conducting a full accounting of Individual Indian Trust accounts. On September 25, 2003, in the case of Cobell v. Norton, U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth ordered the Department of Interior to account for all individual Indian assets held in trust since 1887. This accounting is critical if our government is to meet its federal trust responsibility and reach an equitable settlement over the funds owed to over 300,000 American Indians. My concerns over this funding limitation are threefold. First, it subverts both the legislative and committee process. Last week, Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Campbell and Vice-Chairman Inouye introduced legislation that provided a blueprint on how we can move forward on this issue. As a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I feel strongly that the committee of jurisdiction should deal with this issue so that we can hear from the multiple stakeholders through the traditional hearing and legislative drafting process. Secondly, by forestalling a court order, I am very concerned that this rider may violate the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. With the insertion of this provision, Congress is interfering with the ability of a federal agency to comply with the ruling of a Federal judge. It could also be considered a takings, since Indian account holders are being denied redress to secure just compensation for the use of their property. Finally, this provision will delay efforts to settle this lawsuit because it will remove any incentive the Interior Department might have to participate in good faith negotiations. I hope that its inclusion will at least spur the parties to try and reach a mutually acceptable settlement within the year that this rider will be in effect. After a century of mismanaging Indian assets, it's time for our Nation to keep our promises. While I share the concerns of my colleagues over the potential expense of the accounting process, I believe that the cost further supports the need for a negotiated settlement. That is why I am committed to working with the all affected stakeholders as well as the chairman and vice-chairman of the Indian Affairs committee to resolve this matter once and for all.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, tomorrow, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum will mark its 10th anniversary. More than 6,000 Holocaust survivors and family members will visit the museum this weekend to help commemorate the museum's important contributions. Together, these men and women comprise a living legacy of the Shoah. By sharing their memories, these courageous survivors can help ensure that such evil is never again perpetrated against any people, anywhere. America is a land of immigrants, and our history demonstrates that we are stronger because of our diversity, not in spite of it. But we can only live up to the promise of our diversity if we recognize the inherent rights and freedom of all human life. One of the most powerful ways we can remind each other and our children about the importance of this fundamental principle is to ensure that the Holocaust is never forgotten. For that reason it is fitting that the Holocaust Memorial Museum is located on the National Mall. Visitors to this cherished landmark can see the Declaration of Independence, the Wright brothers' glider, and some of America's most treasured art; all of them vivid reminders about the capacity of the human spirit and the promise of mankind. Yet it is just as important to teach young people and remind adults about one of the darkest chapters of human history. Although the Holocaust was a terrible tragedy that stained all humanity, it must never be hidden from view. The Holocaust Memorial Museum plays a special role in teaching our children and grandchildren about this dark chapter in world history. This haunting permanent memorial will ensure that future generations will learn about this tragedy. Survivors and liberators of the Holocaust have a unique opportunity to share the stories of this awful period. I thank them for having the courage and dignity to survive the horrors of the Holocaust, and for having the bravery to share their experiences with others so that it may never happen again. Their contributions will help all of us build a better America and a better world.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, Federal judges serve lifetime terms, and are responsible for interpreting our Constitution, and our laws, in ways that have real implications for the rights of regular Americans. Last year I joined my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee in voting not to report the nomination elevating Federal District Court Judge Charles Pickering to the Circuit Court of Appeals to the Senate floor. I stand by that vote. I continue to have very real concerns about Judge Pickering's ability to be a fair and neutral Court of Appeals judge. In evaluating judicial nominations, among the factors I consider are whether the nominee demonstrates the highest level of professional ethics and integrity, and has the ability to distinguish between personal beliefs and interpreting the law. Unfortunately, I believe Judge Pickering falls short in meeting these criteria. Judge Pickering is an honorable person, but he is simply the wrong person to fill this very important position. Like my colleagues, I am troubled by Judge Pickering's handling of the case of United States v. Swan, where a white defendant was tried for burning a cross on the lawn of an interracial couple. Judge Pickering had multiple ex parte conversations with prosecutors and Justice Department officials in an effort to reduce the sentence of Mr. Swan. In doing so, Judge Pickering seems to have lost sight of the ethical limitations on his actions, and the extent to which he was failing to maintain judicial independence. As Brenda Polkey, the victim of the cross burning, said, her ``faith in the justice system was destroyed'' by Pickering's efforts to reduce Mr. Swan's sentence. In every aspect of government we need to work hard and keep faith with the public. This case indicates how deeply held Judge Pickering's views are, and how far he will go to arrive at an outcome he believes to be correct. The difficulty that he has in keeping his personal views out of his judicial decisionmaking are obvious, not only in this case, but in several opinions in which he goes beyond the facts of the case to state his belief of what the law ought to be. Judge Pickering's efforts to solicit letters of support from lawyers appearing before him in direct violation of the canons of judicial ethics is another example of his lack of understanding and adherence to the ethical guidelines that are critical to maintaining the independence and integrity of the Federal judiciary. Because of this troubling record of not following precedent, and of overstepping ethical bounds to achieve a particular outcome, I asked Judge Pickering questions at his hearing that focused on the right to privacy. I asked Judge Pickering about privacy as it pertains to consumers' rights, specifically medical and financial records, as it pertains to an individual's right to privacy in the context of government surveillance, and with regard to a woman's right to make personal decisions about her body. In response, he declined to state whether he believed that any right to privacy was conferred by our Constitution. While my concern about how Judge Pickering would rule on cases of fundamental privacy rights is not the only factor in my decision to oppose his elevation to the Circuit Court, it is one I believe is important. The Fifth Circuit covers three States--Louisiana, Texas and Mississippi--that have passed more anti-choice legislation restricting a woman's right to make personal choices about her own body than any other States. In fact, all three States continue to have unconstitutional and unenforceable laws on their books prohibiting a woman from having an abortion, because the legislature in each of these States will not repeal the laws. This is the context against which we must consider the President's nomination of Judge Pickering. While Judge Pickering has repeatedly pledged to restrain his personal ideological views and follow the precedent of the Supreme Court, given the unique role that the Fifth Circuit plays in protecting not only the constitutional right to privacy enunciated in Roe and affirmed in Casey, but also in protecting women's access to abortion providers in the States with the Fifth Circuit, I am concerned about Judge Pickering's willingness to say where in the Constitution privacy is protected and his willingness to follow the law. Judge Pickering's actions on the bench reveal a lack of understanding of the requirements of judicial ethics and a failure to meet the very highest standards of the legal profession. Judge Pickering has exhibited a lack of ability to distinguish his personal believes from judging the issues before the court, and I therefore cannot support his elevation to the Fifth Circuit.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2038, as modified.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Jeffords be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to thank the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senators Cochran and Harkin, for including in the managers' package an amendment I filed on the issue of wildland firefighter safety. My heart goes out to my colleagues from California and the people they represent. In Washington, we are well acquainted with catastrophic wildfires and the threat they pose to local communities. Our thoughts are with the people of California, as well as with the families of the firefighters on the job--including crews from my State who are on their way south to join in the effort. The men and women who fight fires on our public lands serve our Nation bravely. Since 1910, more than 900 wildland firefighters have lost their lives in the line of duty. Before the California fires, I believe the toll was 26 individuals this year alone. And this morning, we were faced with the news of the first firefighter death from the California blazes--an 11-year veteran named Steven Rucker, who perished while trying to save a home. He leaves behind a wife and two children. As I have read the press accounts and listened to the stories my colleagues have told about the loss of life in California over these past few days, I cannot help but recall a recent tragedy in my State of Washington. On July 10, 2001, near Winthrop in Okanogan County, in the midst of the second worst drought in the history of our State, the Thirtymile Fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21. Sadly, as subsequent investigations revealed, these young men and women did not have to die. In the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile Fire, the tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' We know that firefighting is a dangerous job. But despite its inherent danger, we have a responsibility to ensure that no preventable tragedy like Thirtymile Fire ever happens again. I would like to thank my colleague Senator Bingaman, the distinguished ranking member of the Senate Energy Committee, as well as Senator Wyden, who was then chair of the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests. In the wake of the Thirtymile Fire, they agreed to convene hearings on precisely what went wrong that tragic day. We heard from the grief-stricken families. In particular, the powerful testimony of Ken Weaver--the father of one of the lost firefighters-- put into focus precisely what's at stake when we send these men and women into harm's way. I can think of no worse tragedy for a parent than confronting the loss of a child, especially when that loss could have been prevented by better practices on the part of Federal agencies. At the Senate Energy Committee hearing, we also discussed with experts and the Forest Service itself ways in which we could improve the agency's safety performance. And almost a year to the day after those young people lost their lives, we passed a bill--ensuring an independent review of tragic incidents such as Thirtymile that lead to unnecessary fatalities. Based on subsequent briefings by the Forest Service, revisions to the agency's training and safety protocols, and even based on what I have heard when I have visited with firefighters over the past two years, I do believe the courage of those families to stand up and demand change has had a positive impact on the safety of the young men and women who today are battling blazes as wildland firefighters. Yet, I believe there is more that Congress can do to express our commitment. Today I offer a modest amendment that will take a few more steps in that direction. My amendment does three simple things. First, it will require the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to track the funds the agencies expend for firefighter safety and training. Today, these sums are lumped into the agencies' ``wildfire preparedness'' account. But as I have discussed with various officials in hearings before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, it is difficult for Congress to play its rightful oversight role-- ensuring that these programs are funded in times of wildfire emergency, and measuring the agencies' commitment to these programs over time-- without a separate break-down of these monies. Second, it will require the Secretaries to report to Congress annually on the implementation and effectiveness of its safety and training programs. I assure my colleagues who have not spent time dwelling on this issue, that the maze of policy statements, management directives and curricula changes associated with Federal firefighter training is dizzying and complicated. The agencies have a responsibility to continually revise their policies in the face of new science and lessons learned on the fire line. Meanwhile, this body has the responsibility to ensure needed reforms are implemented. As such, I believe that Congress and the agencies alike would benefit from an annual check-in on these programs. I would also hope that this would serve as a vehicle for an ongoing and healthy dialogue between the Senate and agencies on these issues. Third, it would stipulate that Federal contracts with private firefighting crews require training consistent with the training of Federal wildland firefighters. It would also direct those agencies to monitor compliance with this requirement. This is important not just for the private contractor employees' themselves but for the Federal, State and tribal employees who stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them on the fire line. This is actually quite a complex issue about which many of us are just beginning to learn. With the severity of fire seasons throughout the country over the past 2 years--and notwithstanding the Clinton administration's efforts to hire a significant number of new firefighters as part of the National Fire Plan--the number of private contract crews hired by the agencies to help with fire suppression has tripled since 1998. According to Oregon Department of Forestry estimates, the number of contract crews at work has grown from 88 to 1998 to 300 this year, with 95 percent based in the Pacific Northwest. In general, these contract crews have grown up in former timber communities and provide important jobs, especially given the fact the agencies themselves do not at this juncture have the resources to fight the fires entirely on their own. And many of these contractors have been in operation for a decade or more and boast stellar safety records. Nevertheless, as the number of--and need for--contractors has grown, there are more and more tales of unscrupulous employers that take advantage of workers and skirt training and safety requirements. This is a growing concern for U.S. Forest Service employees and state officials. This summer, the Seattle Times wrote a detailed feature on the issue, quoting internal Forest Service memos as well as evidence from the field. Among the contractor practices cited in the article: Breaking safety rules and failing to warn other crews on the fire line; falsifying or forging firefighting credentials and ignoring training requirements; hiring illegal immigrants that cannot understand fire line commands-- and committing various labor abuses; and rotating a single crew from fire to fire for 50 straight days--while Federal firefighters are not allowed to work more than 14 or 21 days in a row. The article quoted from a November 2002 memo written by Joseph Ferguson, a deputy incident commander for the Forest Service: ``If we don't improve the quality and accountability of this program, we are going to kill a bunch of firefighters . . . Although there were two or three good to excellent crews on each fire, that was offset by 20 to 30 that were hardly worth having,'' Ferguson added. ``It was apparent that training for most of these crews had been done poorly or not at all.'' Paul Broyles, who heads a safety committee for the National Interagency Fire Center added that private crews he has seen have varied from ``fantastic to a he[ck] of a lot less than good and some were real safety concerns.'' He noted that while state government and feds were trying to crack down on violations associated with documentation, ``the assumption is, where there's one problem, there's probably more.'' This provision is a modest beginning in addressing the challenges posed by integrating private and Federal contract crews--and doing it in a manner that maximizes everyone's safety on the fire line. I understand that the Federal and State agencies are already attempting to push contractors in this direction, and this provision will bolster that momentum. I had also hoped to include in this amendment a provision that would direct the General Accounting Office to conduct a study of the impacts of the President's outscourcing initiative on wildland firefighter safety. Unfortunately, that provision was opposed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. Now, let me be clear. I oppose the Bush administration's outsourcing initiative. And if I had my way, I would simply declare that this initiative would not apply to the firefighting agencies. However, at the very least, I hope my colleagues will agree that we should take a close look at how outsourcing will affect the ability of our Federal agencies to do their job when it comes to fighting wildfires and their ability to do it safely. According to the Forest Service Council, which represents 20,000 Forest Service employees across the Nation, some 40 percent of these workers serve dual functions. Likened to the Reserve or National Guard, they call it the ``militia'' approach--where qualified employees that perform other jobs for much of the year are dispatched as ``first responders'' on wildland fires. From a military perspective in Iraq, we have seen the importance of the National Guard and Reserve in supporting our military efforts. No one here in Congress would contemplate outsourcing the Guard and Reserve. I hope my colleagues would recognize that it is completely unclear how the outsourcing initiative, with its emphasis on contracting out certain types of jobs, would impact the need for Forest Service employees to perform these collateral duties. I am concerned that the outsourcing initiative will seriously erode the agencies' capacity to fight fires--just as the sponsors of this bill argue these fires are becoming most intense. Likewise, I have serious concerns that it will disrupt the chain of command on the fire line, especially in instances in which the Forest Service could lose some of its most experienced firefighters as a result of outsourcing. These are my concerns. While I understand that there were objections on the other side of the aisle to including the GAO study provision--and we have thus removed it from this amendment, to move forward on the other important provisions--I guess we are lucky that such a study does not actually require legislation. I plan to work with a number of my colleagues to request just such a report form the GAO, because I believe it is important we thoroughly understand the way outsourcing would impact Federal agencies' ability to fight fires and fight them safely. And so I hope my colleagues will support this simple amendment. Ultimately, the safety of our Federal firefighters is a critical component of how well prepared our agencies are to deal with the threat of catastrophic wildfire. Congress owes it to the families of those brave firefighters we send into harm's way to provide oversight of these safety and training programs. We owe it to our Federal wildland firefighters, their families and their State partners, and to future wildland firefighters. My amendment will provide this body with the additional tools it needs to do the job. I thank my colleagues for supporting this amendment. administrative review process

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I know the hour is already late for some Members. I believe we have had much time to discuss this legislation, but I do believe there are a couple of important amendments that are still yet to come that raise issue that are important for Members to understand. I am concerned that the underlying bill amends the National Environmental Policy Act, a benchmark statute that has been on the books since 1969. Because this is an important act, I believe I must stand up and offer this amendment. I take great pride in the fact that I sit at the desk of Senator Henry M. Jackson who served as chairman of the Senate Interior Committee for many years. He was the prime sponsor and mover behind the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of national legislation that sets the tone for how our environment should be treated as we review the work of Federal agencies' actions. I know my colleagues from California, Oregon, and Idaho are trying to move forward on hazardous fuel reduction projects. I am asking them to consider the impact of the major changes that bill proposes to make to the National Environmental Policy Act process with respect to hazardous fuels reduction projects. In addition, the bill before us leaves the door open for further changes in the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas besides hazardous fuel reduction, and that concerns me. First of all, I really do believe that at the heart of this problem associated with hazardous fuels reduction is funding. It was the case in 2000 when we had a lot of fires throughout the West, and the Western Governors Association came together and said: Let's fund a hazardous fuel reduction account. The problem with the current practice is that Congress provides money for hazardous fuels reduction projects, but the funds are taken out of these accounts and used to fight fires, and the projects are not funded. In addition, we are not providing enough funding for hazardous fuels reduction projects. I estimate that we need approximately $1 billion a year to do adequate hazardous fuel reduction in wildland-urban interface areas. Unfortunately, the President's budget request for this fiscal year included approximately $300 million for this purpose. I think all of my colleagues can agree that we have to come together to authorize and appropriate adequate resources to prevent fires ahead of time. We should not short-fund hazardous fuels reduction and take those limited resources to fight fires when they happen. I applaud my colleagues for their leadership on this issue, particularly the Senator from Oregon, and for putting this legislation forward. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are also trying to bring up the fact that they think it is important that hazardous fuel reduction projects proceed smoothly. That is why I would like to point out to my colleagues that the Forest Service does provide categorical exclusions for hazardous fuels projects. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, sixty percent of projects in 2001-2002 received categorical exclusions. These projects did not require the agency to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment. A second group, about 34 percent, has been approved via environmental assessments, which are much shorter than an EIS. Only 6 percent of the projects have had to go through the full EIS process. These figures are outlined in an October 2003 GAO report that clearly shows that the National Environmental Policy Act has not held up progress on hazardous fuel reduction. What has held up progress is the failure to provide adequate funding in this area. So I ask my colleagues why should we change the National Environmental Policy Act, a landmark piece of Federal legislation that has protected the environment since 1969? Some of my colleagues have suggested that the law's requirement that the Forest Service consider alternatives has delayed hazardous fuels reduction projects. However, numerous court cases have held that in some circumstances two or three action alternatives are adequate to comply with NEPA. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit held that in the cases of Friends of Southeast's Future v. U.S. Forest Service and the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service, that two or three alternatives, in addition to the preferred alternative and the no- action alternative, will satisfy NEPA. The case law does not say that 30 different alternatives must be considered, or 10 different alternatives, or 7 different alternatives, or 6 different alternatives, or even five different alternatives. It is saying that in certain cases, two or three can be adequate. I think my colleagues are well intentioned. However, I have real concerns about the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act, that has been on the books since 1969. The bill before us would limit the number of alternatives to: one, the proposal for hazardous fuel reduction; two, the alternative of doing nothing or; a third alternative, which is the only real alternative. In the case of a proposed fuel reduction project in the Northwest, someone could propose taking no action because we do not have to do that hazardous fuel reduction, and then someone else says, maybe here is an alternative. Well, my concern is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If only 6 percent of these cases really have not had the categorical exemption of not having to go through an EIS and only three percent are ending up in court, then the National Environmental Policy Act is not the cause of the holdup. Washington State has been the subject of many forest fires and many tragedies, most recently the tragic Thirty-mile fire in 2001. Much of eastern Washington is under condition class 2 and condition class 3, and, therefore, could be subject to this bill. My concern is that if a city wants to propose an alternative, it might be precluded from offering an alternative that would address concerns over the impact of the hazardous fuels reduction project on water quality. So I would say to my colleagues, let us fund the hazardous fuels reduction account. Let us move forward to promote healthier forests. If we truly see that the National Environmental Policy Act delays project, even though only 3 percent of hazardous fuels projects have ever reached court, then let us come back and change the law. I am truly concerned with the proposed change to the National Environmental Policy Act. What will stop other legislative proposals from coming to the Senate floor to change the National Environmental Policy Act in other areas? Are Members who are going to support this underlying language ready to stop at hazardous fuel reduction, or do they want to change NEPA all across the board? For example, say one's community has to consider a proposal to build a new gas pipeline. Pipeline safety has been an issue of great controversy in the State of Washington, which had a pipeline explosion several years ago that killed several people. What if only one alternative was considered for the route of a gas pipeline going through one's State? I want to make sure the current law says reasonable alternatives are considered so that no community, no citizen, no organization with standing is left out in the cold. That is what Henry M. Jackson was thinking about when he wrote the National Environmental Protection Act. He thought about making sure the public had a chance to participate in the process. He wanted to make sure they had the ability to have the issues that they wanted to be addressed and considered. The Forest Roads Working Group, an organization that has operated with the blessing of the Bush Administration, along with other organizations, has raised similar concerns. These organizations have expressed their support for the public to have a say and to retain the ability to participate in the decision-making process. I know my colleagues want to move forward on a plan that will make all communities more secure, that will make our forests more healthy. I applaud them for that, but I also hope Members will stop and think about the statistics that GAO has outlined. This dispute is not fundamentally about the EIS process and the number of alternatives. The Forest Service has the ability to proceed via categorical exemptions. It can develop an EIS when it needs to analyze complex proposals. If we start changing NEPA with respect to hazardous fuels projects, where are we going to stop? I urge my colleagues not to change legislation that has been one of the landmark pieces of environmental law that this body saw fit to pass in 1969, but rather to keep that legislation intact and fund hazardous fuel reductions. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the Climate Stewardship Act. I hope the Senate will seize the historic opportunity before it today and vote to begin seriously dealing with this worldwide threat. Unfortunately, I am afraid Congress is not very good at passing laws that will only benefit future generations, especially when there might be a cost--no matter how small--for our constituents today. But I hope that this vote will be different and that my colleagues will join me in passing this sensible legislation to prevent a costly, and potentially catastrophic, rise in global temperatures. As Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, and others have already articulated, the scientific conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions are contributing to an accelerated rate of climate warming is beyond debate. Thousands of climate scientists convened under the United Nations and our own National Academy of Sciences have stated definitively that human activities--primarily the burning of fossil fuels--have contributed and will continue to contribute to rising atmospheric temperatures. I am not an atmospheric scientist, and I don't believe any of my colleagues are, so I hope everyone here will defer to their expertise on this matter. Climate change is an existing and scientifically supported phenomenon which human beings have a responsibility to mitigate. And since the U.S. has the highest per capita greenhouse gas emissions in the world and one of the highest emissions rates per dollar of gross domestic product, we have a particular duty to lead the world on this critical issue. Even the Bush administration, whose sincerity in dealing with this issue is suspect, acknowledges the reality that human activities cause climate change. Last year, in its United States Climate Report for 2002, the administration outlined a vast array of consequences climate change would inflict across our country. I would like to highlight some of the ``likely'' effects mentioned in that report that would have a particularly harsh impact on my home State of Washington. The resulting changes in the amount and timing of runoff are very likely to have significant implications in some basins for water management, flood protection, power production, water quality, and the availability of water resources for irrigations, hydro power, communities, industry, and the sustainability of natural habitats and species. Reduced snow-pack is very likely to alter the timing and amount of water supplies, potentially exacerbating water shortages, particularly through the western United States. The projected increase in the current rate of sea level rise is very likely to exacerbate the nationwide loss of existing coastal wetlands. Habitats of alpine and sub-alpine spruce-fir in the contiguous United States are likely to be reduced and, possibly in the long-term, eliminated as their mountain habitats warm. Rising temperatures are likely to force out some cold-water fish species (such as salmon and trout) that are already near the threshold of their viable habitat . . . . These conditions would also increase stresses on sea grasses, fish, shellfish, and other organisms living in lakes, streams, and oceans. The non-profit group Environmental Defense compiled research that shows that the winter snow pack in the Cascades could decline by 50 percent within 50 years. A reduction even a fraction of that size would have a devastating impact on runoff that is vital for hydropower, agriculture, salmon habitat, and drinking water supplies. And I am sure many of my Western colleagues would be similarly alarmed by potential reductions in their scarce water resources. Just the damages from decreased runoff would cost my State billions of dollars annually, dwarfing even the most pessimistic costs that some opponents contend may result from this bill. But besides the costs this legislation can help avoid, I think it is critical that we consider the tremendous benefits this bill would initiate. Today, we know that the tired mantra that ``protecting the environment costs jobs'' is no longer true. In fact, the market-based mechanisms used in this bill would unleash unprecedented productivity and efficiency gains in our energy sector, as well as catalyze countless new environmental technology industries. That translates into many new high paying engineering and manufacturing jobs and tremendous new export opportunities. A recent report by the U.S. Department of Energy, which included contributions from Washington State's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, forecast significant job growth for jobs in a range of emerging ``green'' industries, such as wind power, biomass energy production, and other energy efficiency specialties. I am proud that my State hosts one of the largest wind farms in the United States. I visited our Stateline project and saw first hand one of the many solutions that the market will find to meet the goals of this legislation. These conclusions were confirmed by a 2001 study carried out in collaboration with public and private partners in the Pacific Northwest that found that the global market for clean energy technologies is expected to reach $180 billion a year--about twice the size of the passenger and cargo aircraft industries--within the next two decades. Already, in Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia this sector is a $1.4 billion per year industry. Despite the potential of these new markets, some of my colleagues have argued that the costs of addressing this problem are too high, because they believe this bill might raise energy costs. While that is highly disputable, I am curious if opponents of this measure also support lifting controls on other pollutants? I'm sure we could make coal-generated electricity even cheaper if we did not require pollution scrubbers. We could allow millions of tons of sulfur dioxide, mercury, and other toxins to flood our nation's air in the name of cheap energy. But of course we wouldn't do that because we know that true costs of such a policy--whether it be the health of our children, the effects of acid rain, or even the visibility at our national parks--would far outweigh any short-term financial gains we may achieve by removing emission controls. The same principle is true of climate change. We may save some money now by ignoring this problem, but entire industries like timber and fishing--key sectors of my State's economy--would be dramatically impacted by climate change. There is no way to deny that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, are pollutants and need to be monitored and controlled as such. As I have listened to this historic debate, I have been frustrated by the dueling charts and reports which have been used to support one position or another. While I, along with many of our Nation's Governors and world leaders, believe that the scientific evidence is indisputable, there may be another important way to view this issue: as an insurance policy. I am confident that even the most vocal opponents of this bill would be reluctant to say that there is absolutely no chance that the vast majority of climate scientists are right about this issue and that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Perhaps the climate skeptics would change their position if they realized that this legislation is really an insurance policy for our children, one that guarantees they will be able to enjoy the same natural world that benefits us today. I believe that is how the American people instinctively understand this issue. This is borne out by a recent nationwide survey that showed that three-quarters of Americans support the McCain-Lieberman climate change bill and two-thirds agree that we can control greenhouse gases without harming our economy. We are a problem-solving nation. When we are faced with a grave threat, we roll up our sleeves, put our heads together, and fix our problems; we don't push them off on our children and future generations. Like the threat of terrorism, climate change is too alarming and disturbing a problem to ignore. The risks of ignoring this problem heavily outweigh the benefits of preserving the status quo. Allowing rapid changes in the temperature of the earth's surface and shifts in worldwide weather patterns that result from global warming would be devastating to the economies of my state, this nation, and the world. Let's make sure this problem gets the serious action it deserves. I urge my colleagues to support this critical bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am sure there is no way I can convey in these minutes all of the important information that needs to be conveyed about this issue. I will highlight a few things. This debate started in 2001 and still goes strong today. The testament of the many Members who were here on the floor is that we are trying to move ahead and move ahead with what is a very needed product. I thank my colleague from Washington and my colleague from Illinois, Senator Durbin, who is also interested in this issue. The bottom line is we all know if we could buy these planes now and have the resources, we would do that. We all know buying the planes sooner makes them cheaper. The issue we have been struggling with is, where are the resources and how do we make this come together in a timely fashion to meet the need. Senator McCain has made all of us stop and think about this issue in ways we might not have thought. I don't think any Member wanted to or should have excluded the authorizing committee from playing its normal role and capacity of reviewing these projects. The fact of the matter is we now are 2 years into this process and we have to figure out a way to move forward. The Armed Services Committee is trying to do just that, trying to say 100 planes should be made through either a lease or procurement process as part of a contract and that we need to move forward soon on the start of that lease contract. We are still a few days away from finally getting a product. I thank Senators Warner and Levin for taking this step in the process outlined in 2001 of the authorizing committee giving its feedback on this original proposal by Congress to have a pilot lease program.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Burns- Wyden CAN-SPAM Act, which would impose limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet. I would like to thank my colleagues, Senators Wyden and Burns, for their leadership in tackling this problem which affects so many consumers in my State of Washington. Unsolicited commercial email or ``spam'' is a major irritant to consumers and businesses alike. Spam exposes computer users--often young children--to pornography, sexual predators, fraudulent schemes, and other unwanted or harmful messages. In addition, spam costs American business close to $10 billion each year in lost productivity, additional infrastructure costs, and legal fees--costs that are ultimately borne by consumers. By clogging our computers, spam threatens to deprive us of the tremendous benefits provided by the Internet. This bill represents a crucial first step in combating the exponential increase in the volume of spam, which today accounts for half of all email messages. Because of the global nature of this problem and the anonymity that the Internet affords spammers, it is impossible for states or individuals alone to take meaningful steps to reduce the impact of this nuisance, and self-regulation is simply not an option. The overwhelming volume of sleazy and fraudulent solicitations originating from criminal organizations demands a tough response that imposes both civil and criminal penalties. That is precisely why this bill is so necessary. To protect computer users in my State and across the country, we must take immediate steps to stem the mountain of spam hitting email inboxes every day. The Burns-Wyden bill is a long-awaited step in the right direction. The bill has been carefully negotiated and improved. By allowing enforcement by State attorneys general and by Internet service providers, we have increased the odds of successful enforcement against the worst spammers. By prohibiting harvesting of email addresses, the use of technology to send thousands of spammed messages, and by prohibiting false and misleading message headers, the bill will send a clear message to the most abusive spammers that their practices will no longer be tolerated. But enforcement will remain a challenge. Spammers have every incentive to increase the volume of their messages because the marginal cost of sending another message is virtually nothing. And because of the anonymity and global nature of the internet, spammers can hide their identity and move their operations offshore. While the bill before us will finally put in place a Federal approach to the global problem of spam, there is no single solution to this complex problem. I am pleased that the bill will require the Federal Trade Commission to develop legislation to establish a national Do Not Email registry modeled on the Do Not Call registry, but I believe there may come a point at which additional protections are necessary to protect consumers and to protect the growth of the information economy. I think we all recognize that we have much more work to do to solve this problem, but the Burns-Wyden bill is an excellent first step in addressing the problem, and I am pleased to help pass this important legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, as a former business person and technology executive who has direct experience with class action litigation, I agree with the proponents of this bill that class action cases that impact Americans in every State ought to be litigated in Federal court. American business should be focused on developing innovative technologies, growing and creating jobs, and securing our economic future. American businesses should not be forced to defend themselves simultaneously in the exact same case in as many as seven different States at the same time. I believe the current consolidation mechanism in Federal court offers both consumers and businesses a fair and efficient means of having their claims heard, and I support allowing more cases to be tried in Federal courts. Unfortunately, I cannot support the bill before us today. While some positive changes have been made to the bill, the bill would close the State courthouse doors to almost all class action cases and move those cases to Federal court. The bill could overwhelm our Federal court system and cause delay not just in the cases that are being removed, but in the important class action matters that are already in Federal court. I come from a State that is ranked as having the third best civil justice system in the country, according to the Chamber of Commerce. I recognize the rights of my constituents to have their claims heard in our own State courts and according to our own State laws. In 1993, hundreds of people in my State became critically ill and several died as a result of eating Jack-in-the-Box hamburgers tainted with deadly E- coli bacteria. Five hundred of those victims and family members came together and filed a class action lawsuit in State court for damages as a result of the injuries they sustained. The case was settled for $12 million. This is not frivolous litigation. In fact, not one of the hundreds of businesses I have talked to about this bill has ever suggested that any abusive or frivolous class action litigation had occurred in Washington State. However, even though most of the plaintiffs in this class action were from Washington, and the case was about personal injury, a claim traditionally heard by State courts, if this lawsuit were to be filed in the future, this bill would give defendants the right to remove the case to Federal court causing additional expense and grievances for the victims in this case. I have three concerns about the bill. We need a better balance between cases being heard in State and Federal court. We need better protections for civil rights cases and a time deadline for moving cases to Federal courts. First, we need to have the proper balance between addressing lawsuits in State and Federal courts. Currently, virtually all class actions are tried in State court. However, by moving virtually all of the lawsuits to Federal courts, this bill does not provide that balance. I support an approach that provides for keeping some cases in State courts and improving the flexibility to try more cases in Federal courts. I have heard from many of the business leaders in my State who have expressed their concerns about the increasing challenges of defending themselves against the same claims in multiple states. I have heard their frustrations about seeing the claims dismissed in one State only to have them filed in another. I have heard from some of the oldest established businesses in my State to the newest. From Weyerhaeuser to Microsoft to AT&T Wireless, Intel, Amazon, the Madrona Group, Expedia, and Starbucks. These employers have been forced to defend class action suits that are either dismissed or settled in a manner that provides little benefit to the class but great financial benefit to the lawyers. That isn't right, and that is why I have asked these companies in my State to analyze what the effects would be of removing any case to Federal court in which less than one third of the plaintiffs were from the State where the case was filed. I have committed to each of these businesses that I will continue to work with them to find a way to move more cases to Federal court while keeping cases that primarily affect a group of consumers in a State in that State's court. While I believe that finding a better balance between class action lawsuits in State and Federal court is critical, I also cannot support this bill in the absence of protections that allow higher portions of settlement awards to be made to those individuals who agree to act as lead plaintiffs in class action cases. In addition, I believe that there needs to be a fixed date for defendants to seek to move a class action case to Federal court. As the bill is written now, a class action case can be proceeded all the way through trial and into jury deliberations--and defendants can still seek to remove it to Federal court even at this late date. I do not believe this serves the interests of justice. This provision should be fixed. I have communicated my three concerns to supporters of the bill. I am disappointed that these straightforward changes, which are in the interests of both consumers and businesses, were not included in the bill. Absent these improvements to the bill, I cannot vote for the measure before us today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam. President, I rise today to express my opposition to the conference report to S. 3 the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. This is an unconstitutional piece of legislation that puts women's lives in jeopardy. Supporters of this bill will argue that this legislation bans only one procedure but this is not the case. Make no mistake about it. This bill puts us on a path outlawing abortion. The language in this bill is vague, and this law could be used to ban other safe and legal procedures. Moreover, this legislation imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to choose by banning abortion procedures at any stage in a woman's pregnancy. This bill does not only ban post-viability abortions, it unconstitutionally restricts women's rights regardless of where the woman is in her pregnancy. In 1973, in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court found that women have a constitutional right to choose. However, after the point of viability-- the point at which a baby can live outside its mother's body--States may ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. The bill before us, however, restricts abortions before viability and it does not include a health exception. Let me repeat that. This bill is fundamentally flawed because it does not protect the women when her health is in danger. In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of this health exception in Stenberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of so-called ``partial birth'' abortions was unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court has stated unequivocally that every abortion restriction, including bans on so-called ``partial-birth abortion,'' must contain a health exception. The Court emphasized that, by failing to provide a health exception, the Nebraska law would place a woman's life in danger. That is exactly what the legislation before us today does as well: it places a woman's life in danger. Despite the Supreme Court's very clear mandate, this underlying legislation does not provide an exception for the health of the mother. For this reason, this legislation, like the measure that was struck down in Stenberg, is unconstitutional. I am very disappointed that this conference report does not include language passed by the Senate that abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; and that the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade established constitutionally based limits on the power of states to restrict the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy. Furthermore, the amendment firmly laid out the sense of the Senate that the decision of the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade was appropriate and secures an important constitutional right and that the decision should not be overturned. I fundamentally believe that private medical decisions should be made by women in consultation with their doctors--not politicians. These decisions include the methods by which a physician chooses to treat his or her patients. Why should we decide that here on the Senate floor? Congressional findings cannot possibly make up for medical consultation between a patient and her doctor. This bill, however, would undermine a physician's ability to determine the best course of treatment for a patient. Physicians must be free to make clinical determinations, in accordance with medical standards of care, that best safeguard a woman's life and health. Women and their families, along with their doctors, are simply better than politicians at making decisions about their medical care. And I don't want to make those decisions for other women. During the course of this debate we heard painful stories about women who were anxiously awaiting the birth of a child when something went horribly wrong. We heard true stories of women who were devastated when they discovered that their child had severe health problems and would not survive. We heard stories about women who wanted to complete their pregnancy and were told by their physicians that, should they do so, they would put their health at risk. The truth is that this is a heartbreaking, painful, personal decision that should be made by solely a woman with the advice of her doctor. I trust the health care providers and organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Medical Women's Association who oppose this ban. These physicians know their patients, they know their stories, and the painful choices that many make, and they know that this ban is wrong. Most importantly, I trust the women in my State and around this country to make the decision that is right for them. During such a difficult, private time, women should be surrounded by those who love and support them. Women should not have to listen to rhetoric that demonizes their heartbreak, but should be able to receive medically accurate information from a trusted health care professional. Three States, including my home State of Washington, have considered similar bans by referendum. All three failed. We considered this debate in my home State in 1998. The referendum failed decisively--by a vote of 57 to 43 percent. These so-called ``partial-birth'' abortion bans--whether the proposals that have been before the Senate in the past or the one before us today--are deliberately designed to erode the protections of Roe v. Wade, at the expense of women's health and at the expense of a woman's right to privacy. The Supreme Court, during the 30 years since it recognized the right to choose, has consistently required that, when a State restricts access to abortion, a woman's health must be the absolute consideration. This legislation does not only disavow the Supreme Court's explicit directive, but the advice of the medical community, and the will of the American people. We must continue to ensure that the women of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available.