Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Emergency Reform Act, which will put in place guidelines for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds. The LIHEAP program, created in 1981, is the primary vehicle by which the Federal Government, through block grants to States, provides energy assistance to low-income families. I applaud the provisions contained in pending energy legislation that will raise the LIHEAP authorization from $2 billion to $3.4 billion for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. As in most parts of the country, demand for LIHEAP dollars far outpaces the supply in my home State of Washington, where, even when fully funded under the current authorization, only 19 percent of eligible families receive home energy assistance. The legislation I'm introducing today, however, deals not with the block-grant portion of the current program, in which allocations to States are determined via formula. Rather, it applies to the contingency fund, which was also authorized in 1981 ``to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.'' As my colleagues are aware, this money is not released according to formula but solely at the discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary. The LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act does four things, designed to provide clarity to States that are in the unfortunate position of suffering from an emergency, as defined in the LIHEAP statute. My legislation: gives Governors the explicit authority to apply to the HHS Secretary for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds; adds transparency to the release of emergency money by directing HHS, in cooperation with the States and Department of Energy, to put in place procedures for the equitable consideration of these applications; requires HHS to include in these procedures the consideration of regional differences in sources of energy supply for low-income households, relative energy price trends and relevant weather-related factors such as drought; and finally, directs HHS to grant States' applications within 30 days unless the Secretary certifies that an emergency, as defined in the statute, has not been demonstrated. Since 1990, a total of $2.67 billion in LIHEAP contingency funds have been distributed. And while there is no doubt in my mind that, in all cases, this money has helped meet the needs of low-income families across this Nation, I believe there have also been widely varying eligibility rules leading to instances in which HHS has overlooked very real energy emergencies. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, we have over the past two years suffered from an unprecedented rise in retail energy rates, the burden of which has fallen disproportionately on low-income families. In fact, today, Washington State families at or below the 50 percent Federal poverty level spend 34 percent or more of their annual income on home energy bills. That is a huge burden, especially in view of our rising unemployment rate and the severe downturn in our economy. Unfortunately, Northwest States have not received emergency LIHEAP funds consistent with their needs. In part, I believe this is because of the perception that our rates will, notwithstanding any increases we might suffer, always be lower, and because this money has traditionally been used to defray the costs of natural gas and home heating oil in the Midwest and Northeast. This legislation requires HHS to consider regional factors such as the fact that home heating oil prices are not relevant to Washington State's low-income families, 77 percent of which have homes reliant on electricity. In addition, it directs HHS to consider regional rather than absolute, price trends. This is a very important point, because, regardless of how low a State's prices might be compared to its neighbor's, a drastic run up in rates has devastating impacts when its manufacturing base, residential homes and truly its entire economy are built upon access to an affordable power supply. In summary, LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act provides additional certainty to states across the country. I understand that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the LIHEAP program. As my colleagues may recall, the provisions of the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act were originally included in the Senate energy bill, now the subject of conference committee deliberations. During floor debate on that bill, I was pleased that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, agreed to examine the contingency fund issue during reauthorization of the LIHEAP program. I believe that clear rules for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds will ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an energy emergency, low-income families will receive much-needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on, which is precisely what Congress intends when it appropriates money to the LIHEAP contingency fund. I believe the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act will help provide this additional certainty.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) Emergency Reform Act, which will put in place guidelines for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds. The LIHEAP program, created in 1981, is the primary vehicle by which the Federal Government, through block grants to States, provides energy assistance to low-income families. I applaud the provisions contained in pending energy legislation that will raise the LIHEAP authorization from $2 billion to $3.4 billion for Fiscal Years 2004 through 2006. As in most parts of the country, demand for LIHEAP dollars far outpaces the supply in my home State of Washington, where, even when fully funded under the current authorization, only 19 percent of eligible families receive home energy assistance. The legislation I'm introducing today, however, deals not with the block-grant portion of the current program, in which allocations to States are determined via formula. Rather, it applies to the contingency fund, which was also authorized in 1981 ``to meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.'' As my colleagues are aware, this money is not released according to formula but solely at the discretion of the Health and Human Services Secretary. The LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act does four things, designed to provide clarity to States that are in the unfortunate position of suffering from an emergency, as defined in the LIHEAP statute. My legislation: gives Governors the explicit authority to apply to the HHS Secretary for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds; adds transparency to the release of emergency money by directing HHS, in cooperation with the States and Department of Energy, to put in place procedures for the equitable consideration of these applications; requires HHS to include in these procedures the consideration of regional differences in sources of energy supply for low-income households, relative energy price trends and relevant weather-related factors such as drought; and finally, directs HHS to grant States' applications within 30 days unless the Secretary certifies that an emergency, as defined in the statute, has not been demonstrated. Since 1990, a total of $2.67 billion in LIHEAP contingency funds have been distributed. And while there is no doubt in my mind that, in all cases, this money has helped meet the needs of low-income families across this Nation, I believe there have also been widely varying eligibility rules leading to instances in which HHS has overlooked very real energy emergencies. In the Pacific Northwest, for example, we have over the past two years suffered from an unprecedented rise in retail energy rates, the burden of which has fallen disproportionately on low-income families. In fact, today, Washington State families at or below the 50 percent Federal poverty level spend 34 percent or more of their annual income on home energy bills. That is a huge burden, especially in view of our rising unemployment rate and the severe downturn in our economy. Unfortunately, Northwest States have not received emergency LIHEAP funds consistent with their needs. In part, I believe this is because of the perception that our rates will, notwithstanding any increases we might suffer, always be lower, and because this money has traditionally been used to defray the costs of natural gas and home heating oil in the Midwest and Northeast. This legislation requires HHS to consider regional factors such as the fact that home heating oil prices are not relevant to Washington State's low-income families, 77 percent of which have homes reliant on electricity. In addition, it directs HHS to consider regional rather than absolute, price trends. This is a very important point, because, regardless of how low a State's prices might be compared to its neighbor's, a drastic run up in rates has devastating impacts when its manufacturing base, residential homes and truly its entire economy are built upon access to an affordable power supply. In summary, LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act provides additional certainty to states across the country. I understand that the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee will soon consider legislation to reauthorize the LIHEAP program. As my colleagues may recall, the provisions of the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act were originally included in the Senate energy bill, now the subject of conference committee deliberations. During floor debate on that bill, I was pleased that the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the HELP Committee, Senators Gregg and Kennedy, agreed to examine the contingency fund issue during reauthorization of the LIHEAP program. I believe that clear rules for the release of LIHEAP contingency funds will ensure that, in the unfortunate event of an energy emergency, low-income families will receive much-needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on, which is precisely what Congress intends when it appropriates money to the LIHEAP contingency fund. I believe the LIHEAP Emergency Reform Act will help provide this additional certainty.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the emergency supplemental spending bill before us that will give our troops the resources they need to do their jobs; hold the President more accountable for his postwar plan; and help the Iraqi people get back on their feet. I believe that the Iraqi people very much deserve U.S. assistance getting their country back on its feet. It is for this reason that I am supporting funding in this supplemental appropriations bill for Iraqi reconstruction. However, I am very concerned that the administration does not have a clear, comprehensive and convincing plan to do this. It is for this reason that I have strongly opposed providing the Bush administration with a blank check in the expenditure of funds in this supplemental. Instead, this supplemental bill includes a broad set of reports and oversight mechanisms, including: A permanent inspector general charged with overseeing the Coalition Provisional Authority on its operations and financial transactions. Audits for the use of reconstruction funds, including how they are solicited, bid and granted. A monthly report from the Coalition Provisional Authority on its progress in the stated goal of replacing U.S. troops with multinational forces and Iraqi security personnel. A report on the administration's utilization of National Guard and Reserves, and the impact that this has on our country's homeland security. A requirement for the President to submit to Congress its projected costs for Iraqi operations through 2008 and any changes to these projections. Quarterly reports to Congress on the status of the hunt for weapons of mass destruction. These are important mechanisms that demonstrate clearly that this funding does not come without strings attached. On the contrary, these mechanisms will hold the administration accountable for developing a strategy and ensure transparency in supporting Iraqi reconstruction. We also need to be clear that the U.S. cannot do this alone. I believe the U.S. must take the leadership role to ensure that Iraq benefits from the legitimacy, cooperation and money that only a broad coalition can guarantee. That is why I supported a provision in this bill that requires the President to report to Congress on his efforts to increase international donations and to assess how the U.S. can best leverage U.S. taxpayer dollars for international support and international debt forgiveness. The administration has had some successes in gaining international support, notably yesterday's United Nations Security Council resolution, which was a unanimous statement supporting multilateral efforts to stabilize, reconstruct and support Iraq's transition towards a sovereign democracy. Also, the administration has taken an important step in engaging foreign countries to commit troops, including the recent agreement from Turkey. The administration has also shown progress in soliciting financial contributions, including the $1.5 billion Japanese commitment. However, this is really just a start. Foreign troops and foreign contributions remain terribly lower than where they need to be. The administration needs to be committed to broadening its coalition of support and making the Iraqi reconstruction a global challenge met by the international community. I believe that it is also very important that the administration speaks with a solid, unified voice regarding its efforts and strategy in Iraq. It seems that every day we hear a different plan, a different projection, a different statement on needs and demands from one of several agencies and ``spokespeople'' that claim to speak for the administration. The American people need and deserve accountability and clarity--not only on the challenges that we face, but on the solutions that we are seeking to execute. This clarity is particularly important for the central questions of how long reconstruction will take, what the U.S. role will be, and, perhaps most importantly, how long our troops will remain in harm's way. The uniformed men and women of our armed forces have served their country well. Their military efforts have demonstrated historic success, and they continue to sacrifice for our country on a daily basis in securing and stabilizing Iraq. Washington State is proud to be the home of thousands of troops, sailors and airmen that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan from home bases from such places as Fort Lewis, Fairchild Air Force Base, and Everett Naval Station. These men and women are meeting the call of duty superbly and we must provide them with the equipment and support that they deserve. We also owe a particular debt of gratitude for our National Guard and Reserve units, which have been mobilized in historic numbers and for sustained lengths of time--leaving their jobs and families to serve their countries. In fact, in my state, the 81st Armored Brigade--almost 4,000 citizen-soldiers--were alerted for a possible deployment to Iraq. Given this important sacrifice made by reservists, I am particularly pleased that this supplemental package includes my bipartisan fair deployment amendment. Like many guard and reservists--including the National Guard Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and the National Military Families Association--I was disturbed last month by the administration's sudden change in deployment policy. My amendment addresses the change by requiring that deployment times for guard and reserves begin as soon as they are activated, we ensure that every day of service counts. I have long said that we need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our Guard and Reserve personnel and this will do this by starting the clock ticking when their boots are out of the house. In addition, this includes resources for health care for reservists and their families, as well as critical funding for our veterans. First, I was a proud co-sponsor of an amendment that will extend TRICARE coverage to reservists and their families who are not currently covered by health insurance, and provide assistance to those reservists who are called up to duty so that they do not have to cancel their existing health care coverages. Second, I also proudly cosponsored a Bond-Mikulski amendment that will provide $1.3 billion in funding for veterans health care. This amendment means that Washington State will receive approximately $30 million in new VA health care funding, providing care to approximately 6,000 veterans who would not receive it. This has been an important, productive and historic debate for the future of Iraq, the Middle East region and, most importantly, in shaping America's role in the world. This ultimate bill ensures that Congress will retain a major role in overseeing the way this money is spent and I remain committed to ensuring that we give our troops the tools they need to do their jobs; get the international support that we need; and making sure that our mission in Iraq is completed quickly and that our troops can come home.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I have offered an amendment to this bill that will bring predictability and clarity to our deployment of National Guard and Reserve units. I thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond and Leahy, the cochairs of the Senate National Guard Caucus, as well as Senators Bingaman, Leahy, Johnson, Nelson of Florida, Graham of Florida, Murray, Kennedy, Pryor, Lautenberg, and Kerry, who are joining me in sending a message that we need to be consistent in how we calculate the deployment times for our Guard and Reserve personnel. This amendment will direct the Pentagon to consider the full activation time for Guard and Reserve personnel in considering its deployment policies and also to establish a program to more effectively notify troops and their families of changes in deployment policies and/or extensions in deployment periods. This action will go a long way in ensuring better predictability for our military reservists, their families, and employers--they certainly deserve it. I am proud to say that it has been endorsed by the National Guard Association of the United States, the Reserve Officers Association and the National Military Families Association. As many in this Chamber know, over 20,000 troops in Iraq were faced with a rude awakening last month when the administration changed a 50- year standard practice in calculating deployment policies--a change the effectively extended deployments for these troops by several months in many cases. Prior to last month's decision, the length of deployment was calculated based on the time a reservist was activated--when a member of the Guard and Reserve left home. However, last month, the administration changed the method of calculation to time deployed ``in theater.'' This is not the way to treat our Reserve component. We are asking more and more from them, and they deserve better. The Guard and Reserve are critically important to our national security both at home and abroad. Since September 11, 2001, the National Guard has mobilized 210,000 of its 350,000 soldiers at one time or another. The Reserve has mobilized 85,000 of its 205,000 in that same time period. In my own State, with the recent alert of the Army National Guard's 81st Armored Brigade, 41 percent of Washington State's National Guard-- 4,041 troops--are currently alerted and deployed, as well as 2,100 reservists from bases around my State. These are historic levels of sustained mobilization, and we need to be clear that we are asking a lot from these men and women--and we must do everything we can to ensure that the Guard and Reserve continue to recruit and retain skilled and committed personnel. It goes without saying that these men and women definitely signed up to serve when their country calls. The reservists in my State do not dispute their commitment; they embrace it. However, we need to know that we are asking an extraordinary commitment from our Nation's Guard and reservists, their families and their employers and we need to recognize the full commitment. This is why I was concerned when the Pentagon announced that it will calculate deployment lengths for the over 20,000 Guard and Reserve members in Iraq based on the actual time in the theater of operations-- otherwise known as ``boots on the ground.'' This change altered a long-standing practice dating back to the Korean-war era in which deployment lengths for Guard and Reserve officers were calculated from the moment they were actually activated-- that is, when they are called to leave their jobs and families to begin pre-mobilization preparation time and included post-mobilization time. This preparation time can sometimes take as much as 3 to 6 months. As a result, thousands of troops in the theater of operations who were expecting to go home--literally counting the days to return--were just informed that their time would be extended, some by as much as 6 months. This is just wrong. As Mark Kimmey, an Army reservist, wrote in the New York Times: ``the message to reservists is unmistakable: the Army no longer takes into account sacrifices made to maintain two career lives.'' We absolutely own it to our Guard and reservists to give them predictability in the process and to fully recognize that the Guard and reservists' lives are serving from the point they are activated. My amendment will direct the Pentagon to revert back to the standard practice in considering, for the purposes of deployment announcements, mobilization reports and communications, the clock to start ticking from the point of activation--that is, ``boots out of the house.'' If we need our reservists to serve in theater for 1 year and 6 months in preparation time, that's fine. But let's be honest, these troops are being deployed for 18 months--not a year. Troops, families, and employers deserve the respect of our acknowledging the sacrifice. Let me be absolutely clear--this amendment does not, by any means, seek to limit the operational use of the Guard and Reserve, nor are we seeking to limit the flexibility of their use. This does absolutely nothing to limit the ability of the Pentagon to mobilize and use our Guard and Reserve units, nor does it limit the length of time that they can be deployed. Moreover, the amendment's provisions can be waived at any point in the case of dire, unexpected operational needs. We are simply asking the administration to adopt the standard practice in effect for decades in calculating deployment times so that troops and their families can know when to start their clocks. Ultimately, this is a very modest amendment. We are asking the Pentagon to be honest, consistent and predictable in the use of our Guard and Reserve. They deserve it; their families deserve it; we owe it to them.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to join my well-meaning colleagues on both sides of this debate in trying too determine the best mechanism for not only our leadership in Iraq and getting the Iraqi people on their feet, but also in getting other countries to help by forgiving Iraqi debt. It is crucial that we in this Chamber send a strong message to the Iraqi people that we will be the world's most outspoken advocate for Iraqi reconstruction and that the United States will play a leadership role. Now I don't impugn the motives of other Members who want to qualify our assistance through a loan formula. I share my colleagues' concerns that the funding for Iraq reconstruction is a serious cost that we need to thoroughly consider and oversee. However, I think it is critically important to realize that Americans have already been making a serious investment in this region in order to ensure that we are so close to achieving: A stable, peaceful, democratic Iraq. We spent billions of dollars to expel Hussein out of Kuwait; we spent billions throughout the nineties patrolling a no-fly zone; and we spent billions to liberate Iraq, and we are spending billions to secure and stabilize the country. We are now the closest we have ever been to achieving the very goal that we have sacrificed lives and spent billions to achieve. We are very close to taking the Iraqi people off their knees and putting them on their feet. Yet, the right way to do this is by helping them build a strong economy not by saddling the Iraqis with further debt. Let's consider what we are saying when we ask the Iraqi people to take on this loan. Think about it. Iraq's annual oil revenues may be somewhere around $15 billion, but we are on the verge of adding to an existing debt level of $200 billion--and expecting them to pay with their oil revenues. To think that Iraq can pay off a loan by oil revenues when its debt is thirteen times its annual oil revenues is ridiculous. A future Iraq would end up spending half of its oil revenues on interest payments alone. Is that the message we want to send to the Iraqi people? Is that the message we want to send to the mayor of Kirkuk who I met? To the governor of Basra who doesn't have enough electricity to serve his community? To the members of the Iraqi council, who are not only giving their time to serve their country, but are risking their lives. To the woman of the Iraqi council who spent 16 years in hiding with other women only to rejoice when she found out that the United States was coming to give them an opportunity to meet and express their opinions in public. These courageous leaders have stepped out to rebuild this country, and are willing to give their lives to do so. We need to help these people re-build their country, not pile on additional debt. Now is not the time for the United States to back away form its leadership role in nurturing Iraq's future. Make no mistake, I am disappointed like all my colleagues that the American economy isn't recovering as well as it should. I am disappointed in our terribly low levels of domestic investment. I have as much concern as anyone over our domestic economy--my home state of Washington is still facing a terribly high 7.5 percent unemployment rate. But we cannot tell the American people that we are going to solve their problem by somehow holding down the Iraqi people to a future debt that will not let them stand on their feet. The United States must play a leadership role in Iraq reconstruction. And it is very hard to play a leadership role when our commitment to Iraq reconstruction is qualified by the conditions of a loan. We need to say to the rest of the world community that it is time for them to help build Iraq, too. We need to say that if they are serious in their commitments about rebuilding Iraq, as the U.N. did in its resolution today, then get behind that message and deliver. But to say that out of the $87 billion that we are talking about, that some-how $10 billion of it ought to be paid back in a loan--only if the other countries are not willing to commit to debt forgiveness-- is not the message of a leader. A leader who believes in the Iraqi people will stand behind them and give them the ability to get their country on their feet. We must be this leader and get them on their feet and get our troops back home.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor, along with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Murray of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of developing a national park site at one or more of the facilities that playing a major role in the Manhattan Project--the Federal Government's top-secret effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons before its opponents, an initiative that changed the course of world history. I believe it is tremendously important for the citizens of our Nation to learn about the important functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in defending our Nation, from World War II through the cold war, and to recognize and understand the complicated and weighty issues arising from the production and use of nuclear weapons, their impact on world history as well as their human and environmental costs. In January of 1943, Hanford, WA was selected by the War Department to serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Manhattan Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: It was remotely located from population centers, which fostered security and safety; the Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby Federal dams. The history of this era is a complicated one--as farmers and tribes were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the priority facility on the Hanford Reservation was the B reactor. Built in just 11 months as American scientists and their allies engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the Germans to develop nuclear capability, B reactor was the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor. The need for labor for the project turned Hanford into an atomic boomtown, with the population reaching 50,000 by the summer of 1944. Workers at the sprawling Hanford complex were not even sure of what they were producing, and tales of German rockets used during battles led many workers to believe they were producing rocket fuel. In fact, this secrecy continued even after the atomic bombs were dropped. One worker recalled that many children who lived in the area didn't even know what their parent who worked at Hanford did on the job. Clearly, the B reactor at Hanford made significant contributions to U.S. defense policies during its production run, from 1944 through 1968. Plutonium from the B reactor was used in the world's first nuclear explosion, called the Trinity Test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. B reactor plutonium was also used in the ``Fat Man'' bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The blast devastated more than two square miles of the city, effectively ending World War II. The B reactor also produced plutonium for the cold war efforts until 1968. The B reactor is simply a stunning feat of engineering. Built in less than a year, the reactor consisted of a 1,200-ton graphite cylinder lying on its side, which was penetrated through its entire length horizontally by over 2,000 aluminum tubes. Two hundred tons of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters went into the tubes. Cooling water from the Columbia River, which first had to be treated, was pumped through the aluminum tubes at 75,000 gallons per minute. Water consumption approached that of a city with a population of 300,000. The B reactor was one of three reactors that had its own auxiliary facilities that included a river pump house, large storage and settling basins, a filtration plant, huge motor-driven pumps for delivering the water, and facilities for emergency cooling in case of a power failure. It was the first of an eventual nine nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia River--a potent reminder of both the war effort and the environmental burden with which we must contend. The people of Washington State, and especially the residents of the tri-cities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and cold war efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the Manhattan Project--such as the B reactor--which are incredibly important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral issues it poses for the possessors of such technology. As the Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the Hanford site, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it is important that we also honor the achievements of the important work done here, as well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by workers, displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental legacy. There is already strong support in the communities that surround Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I would like to commend the B reactor Museum Association and Bechtel Hanford, Inc. for all this work to date. In recent years, they have worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers. But more work needs to be done if we want to preserve the reactor for future generations, which must learn about the Manhattan Project and its impact on world history. One such way to do that is to look into the possibility of adding the B reactor as well as Manhattan Project sites in other parts of the country as a new National Park unit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first step in determining the best options for preserving this important piece of American history.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor, along with my colleagues, Senators Bingaman and Murray of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes a special resource study to determine the suitability and feasibility of developing a national park site at one or more of the facilities that playing a major role in the Manhattan Project--the Federal Government's top-secret effort during World War II to develop nuclear weapons before its opponents, an initiative that changed the course of world history. I believe it is tremendously important for the citizens of our Nation to learn about the important functions the various Manhattan Project sites served in defending our Nation, from World War II through the cold war, and to recognize and understand the complicated and weighty issues arising from the production and use of nuclear weapons, their impact on world history as well as their human and environmental costs. In January of 1943, Hanford, WA was selected by the War Department to serve as a part of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Manhattan Project plan. The site was selected for several reasons: It was remotely located from population centers, which fostered security and safety; the Columbia River provided plenty of water to cool the reactors; and cheap and abundant electricity was available from nearby Federal dams. The history of this era is a complicated one--as farmers and tribes were displaced, given 30 days to move from their homes in central Washington. By March 1943, construction had started on the site, which covers about 625 square miles. At the time, the priority facility on the Hanford Reservation was the B reactor. Built in just 11 months as American scientists and their allies engaged in what was then perceived as a race with the Germans to develop nuclear capability, B reactor was the world's first large-scale plutonium production reactor. The need for labor for the project turned Hanford into an atomic boomtown, with the population reaching 50,000 by the summer of 1944. Workers at the sprawling Hanford complex were not even sure of what they were producing, and tales of German rockets used during battles led many workers to believe they were producing rocket fuel. In fact, this secrecy continued even after the atomic bombs were dropped. One worker recalled that many children who lived in the area didn't even know what their parent who worked at Hanford did on the job. Clearly, the B reactor at Hanford made significant contributions to U.S. defense policies during its production run, from 1944 through 1968. Plutonium from the B reactor was used in the world's first nuclear explosion, called the Trinity Test, in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. B reactor plutonium was also used in the ``Fat Man'' bomb dropped on Nagasaki, Japan on August 9, 1945. The blast devastated more than two square miles of the city, effectively ending World War II. The B reactor also produced plutonium for the cold war efforts until 1968. The B reactor is simply a stunning feat of engineering. Built in less than a year, the reactor consisted of a 1,200-ton graphite cylinder lying on its side, which was penetrated through its entire length horizontally by over 2,000 aluminum tubes. Two hundred tons of uranium slugs the size of rolls of quarters went into the tubes. Cooling water from the Columbia River, which first had to be treated, was pumped through the aluminum tubes at 75,000 gallons per minute. Water consumption approached that of a city with a population of 300,000. The B reactor was one of three reactors that had its own auxiliary facilities that included a river pump house, large storage and settling basins, a filtration plant, huge motor-driven pumps for delivering the water, and facilities for emergency cooling in case of a power failure. It was the first of an eventual nine nuclear reactors that remain on the banks of the Columbia River--a potent reminder of both the war effort and the environmental burden with which we must contend. The people of Washington State, and especially the residents of the tri-cities, are proud of their contributions to the World War II and cold war efforts. We are left with these irreplaceable relics of the Manhattan Project--such as the B reactor--which are incredibly important in understanding the engineering achievements that propelled this country into the nuclear age, with all of the complicated moral issues it poses for the possessors of such technology. As the Department of Energy continues its work to clean up the Hanford site, the country's most contaminated nuclear reservation, it is important that we also honor the achievements of the important work done here, as well as commemorate the tremendous sacrifices made by workers, displaced families and tribes, and this era's environmental legacy. There is already strong support in the communities that surround Hanford for preserving the history of the Manhattan Project, and I would like to commend the B reactor Museum Association and Bechtel Hanford, Inc. for all this work to date. In recent years, they have worked hard to decontaminate, clean, inventory, and spruce up B reactor's interior so that people can walk in to see three chambers. But more work needs to be done if we want to preserve the reactor for future generations, which must learn about the Manhattan Project and its impact on world history. One such way to do that is to look into the possibility of adding the B reactor as well as Manhattan Project sites in other parts of the country as a new National Park unit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure passage of this bill, as the study it authorizes is a much-needed first step in determining the best options for preserving this important piece of American history.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most important issues facing our country today. How we prepare our students to compete for the jobs that are still in demand today and the jobs that will be in demand tomorrow. In order to address this issue, we must increase our support for the entire education and training continuum--incuding secondary schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges and universities. Today, I want to focus on one key part of this continuum: community and technical colleges. Nationwide, there are now more than 1,100 of these institutions, which enroll 10.4 million students. For over a century, community colleges have grown and changed with the times. No other segment of higher education is more responsive to its community and workforce needs than the community college. Whether providing academic preparation for a 4-year degree, or technical training for a job requiring a community college credential, 2-year institutions play a very significant role in creating a skilled workforce. However, transfer rates are low: only about one quarter to one third of those students who intend to transfer to a 4-year institution actually do so. These low transfer rates and the continuing challenges employers face in finding skilled workers mean that we must strengthen the connections between community colleges and 4-year institutions and between community colleges and employers. I am introducing a bill today that will address these issues. The Community College Partnership Act of 2003 will encourage partnerships between community and technical colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. This bill will provide $70 million for 6 to 12 grants to partnerships between 2- and 4-year institutions to identify and address barriers to staying in school, to transferring to a 4-year institution, and to responding to the demand for skilled workers in high-quality, emerging and established industries. The fact is employers depend on skilled workers to provide services and produce goods. Even in this time of high unemployment, some employers are having hard times finding skilled workers. For example, according to the American Hospital Association, there are 126,000 nursing positions that are unfilled across the country. In Washington State, there are currently 2,564 nursing vacancies even though our State ranks as one of the highest unemployment States. Why are these jobs going begging? The answer is that we have a lack of trained workers. From personal experience as both an employee and as an employer, I understand the importance of skills in the private sector. When I changed careers several years ago, I was able to succeed as a software company executive because I had the chance to get a good basic education. I come from a working-class family, but I was able to be the first in my family to get a college degree, thanks to the Federal Pell Grant program. As an employer in that software company, I realized that because of the fast pace of change we needed to hire a workforce of people who were prepared to respond quickly to changing situations. We also had to hire people who could create new ways of doing business literally overnight. I strongly believe that a good basic education coupled with lifelong training opportunities are key to equiping workers with the types of decision-making abilities necessary to be successful in today's economy. Yet, we are failing at our job of preparing workers. There is a crisis in our education and training system. Underfunding is a significant issue. Both 2- and 4-year institutions lack the capacity to respond to demand. More State and Federal investment is essential. However, to truly close the skills gap, we must also address the other problems 2- and 4-year institutions face. These problems center on keeping students in the system and advancing them to the next level. The sad reality is that along the way to a good basic education, students get diverted away from their goals. In high school, they may lack information about the opportunities higher education promises. If they make it into a community college, they may be forced to abandon their education because the opportunity cost of not earning a wage is too high. If they do earn an associate's degree, the transition to a 4- year institution is fraught with challenges. Agreements between 2- and 4-year institutions to accept students may not exist. Credits may not easily transfer. Community or technical college students may need additional tutoring, mentoring or support to succeed in a 4-year institution. Programs and schedules may be structured to preclude work and study--a growing necessity as college costs rise. These are significant barriers than can and should be addressed. That is why I am introducing the Community College Partnership Act today. I am proud of this bill and believe that it will go a long way toward closing our skills gap. In addition, however, I remain committed to addressing the significant funding shortfalls that our educational institutions face. Ensuring students get the skills necessary for our new economy is essential. We must meet the needs of employers who have unfilled jobs now, as well as employers in emerging technologies that will provide significant job opportunities in the coming years.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss one of the most important issues facing our country today. How we prepare our students to compete for the jobs that are still in demand today and the jobs that will be in demand tomorrow. In order to address this issue, we must increase our support for the entire education and training continuum--incuding secondary schools, community colleges, 4-year colleges and universities. Today, I want to focus on one key part of this continuum: community and technical colleges. Nationwide, there are now more than 1,100 of these institutions, which enroll 10.4 million students. For over a century, community colleges have grown and changed with the times. No other segment of higher education is more responsive to its community and workforce needs than the community college. Whether providing academic preparation for a 4-year degree, or technical training for a job requiring a community college credential, 2-year institutions play a very significant role in creating a skilled workforce. However, transfer rates are low: only about one quarter to one third of those students who intend to transfer to a 4-year institution actually do so. These low transfer rates and the continuing challenges employers face in finding skilled workers mean that we must strengthen the connections between community colleges and 4-year institutions and between community colleges and employers. I am introducing a bill today that will address these issues. The Community College Partnership Act of 2003 will encourage partnerships between community and technical colleges and 4-year colleges and universities. This bill will provide $70 million for 6 to 12 grants to partnerships between 2- and 4-year institutions to identify and address barriers to staying in school, to transferring to a 4-year institution, and to responding to the demand for skilled workers in high-quality, emerging and established industries. The fact is employers depend on skilled workers to provide services and produce goods. Even in this time of high unemployment, some employers are having hard times finding skilled workers. For example, according to the American Hospital Association, there are 126,000 nursing positions that are unfilled across the country. In Washington State, there are currently 2,564 nursing vacancies even though our State ranks as one of the highest unemployment States. Why are these jobs going begging? The answer is that we have a lack of trained workers. From personal experience as both an employee and as an employer, I understand the importance of skills in the private sector. When I changed careers several years ago, I was able to succeed as a software company executive because I had the chance to get a good basic education. I come from a working-class family, but I was able to be the first in my family to get a college degree, thanks to the Federal Pell Grant program. As an employer in that software company, I realized that because of the fast pace of change we needed to hire a workforce of people who were prepared to respond quickly to changing situations. We also had to hire people who could create new ways of doing business literally overnight. I strongly believe that a good basic education coupled with lifelong training opportunities are key to equiping workers with the types of decision-making abilities necessary to be successful in today's economy. Yet, we are failing at our job of preparing workers. There is a crisis in our education and training system. Underfunding is a significant issue. Both 2- and 4-year institutions lack the capacity to respond to demand. More State and Federal investment is essential. However, to truly close the skills gap, we must also address the other problems 2- and 4-year institutions face. These problems center on keeping students in the system and advancing them to the next level. The sad reality is that along the way to a good basic education, students get diverted away from their goals. In high school, they may lack information about the opportunities higher education promises. If they make it into a community college, they may be forced to abandon their education because the opportunity cost of not earning a wage is too high. If they do earn an associate's degree, the transition to a 4- year institution is fraught with challenges. Agreements between 2- and 4-year institutions to accept students may not exist. Credits may not easily transfer. Community or technical college students may need additional tutoring, mentoring or support to succeed in a 4-year institution. Programs and schedules may be structured to preclude work and study--a growing necessity as college costs rise. These are significant barriers than can and should be addressed. That is why I am introducing the Community College Partnership Act today. I am proud of this bill and believe that it will go a long way toward closing our skills gap. In addition, however, I remain committed to addressing the significant funding shortfalls that our educational institutions face. Ensuring students get the skills necessary for our new economy is essential. We must meet the needs of employers who have unfilled jobs now, as well as employers in emerging technologies that will provide significant job opportunities in the coming years.

Mr. CANTWELL

Mr. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Reid. This amendment is important and it's fitting that we discuss this measure this week, just days after the 10th anniversary of National Public Lands Day. On Saturday, thousands of Americans around the country contributed their time and labor to help improve our shared national lands. In my home State of Washington, volunteers restored trails, planted trees, and improved oyster habitat, to name a few projects. I commend everyone who was involved in this effort for their commitment to protecting and preserving our public lands. Today's debate is about the many thousands of federal employees who dedicate themselves to this important cause every day. In our national parks, national forests, national wildlife refuges, and other public lands, these men and women work every day of the year to protect and preserve these national treasures. An article by Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist, Joel Connelly, quoted Stewart Udall, the Interior Department boss under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson as saying ``These are the best people in the government . . . It's extraordinary they would pick on this Teddy Roosevelt agency.'' Unfortunately, the Bush administration has proposed a rule change that would radically alter the management of our public lands. The President has proposed ``outsourcing'' important stewardship roles to for-profit contractors. Under his proposal, private contractors could fill more than 800,000 jobs, including posts in the National Park Service like at Olympic National Park, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Geological Survey, among other agencies. In my home State of Washington, this proposal could affect 10,000 government-wide jobs, including 348 national park biologists, educators, and maintenance staff. I believe this is the wrong approach. When it comes to our public lands, our first concern should be protecting our national treasures by ensuring the highest level of natural resource stewardship. There are many legitimate questions as to whether this outsourcing scheme would even save any money. In June, the General Accounting Office concluded a comprehensive 2-year study on outsourcing and found that ``competitions took longer than projects, costs and resources required for competitions were underestimated, [and] determining and maintaining reliable estimates of savings was difficult.'' Even though the long term ``savings'' are suspect, we know for sure that outsourcing is hurting our national parks. Park Service Director Mainella estimated that the first round of competitive sourcing would cost $3 million, much of which will have to come out of maintenance. Even though Mount Rainier was taken off the list of parks subject to outsourcing this year, Park Superintendent Dave Uberuaga had to set aside $335,000 of badly needed money for park maintenance to pay for a privatization study. The cost of simply studying these Park Service positions is estimated to begin at $3,000 and go up from there. The Federal workers entrusted with the preservation of our public lands can't simply be replaced by private workers. They are dedicated professionals who know the parks and public lands better than anyone, and they are not beholden to private interests who seek to exploit our public lands. Don't just take my word for it. Listen to what 145 former National Park Service employees--including four former directors--said in a recent letter to President Bush decrying his proposal: While publicizing glossy reports to convince the public that your Administration cares about this country's national treasures, you are strangling the very core of park stewardship, sidestepping the important issues that are facing the parks and ignoring the operational budgets of the parks. We are seeing evidence at every turn that when private for-profit interests vie with resources of the park, the private interests, and not principle, governs. Even the current Director of the National Park Service, Fran Mainella, disagrees with the administration's approach. Earlier this year, in an intra-departmental memo, she expressed her concerns about the President's initiative. She noted that because the administration did not seek funding to cover the costs of the thousands of competitive sourcing studies it has mandated, those costs must be absorbed by reductions in park operations and other worthy activities, which will result in reduced visitor services and the deferment of essential park maintenance. Losing current National Park Service employees will also cause our national parks to lose a great deal of institutional knowledge to individuals who may not have training in these fields. National Park Service employees, who often live in rural communities surrounding the parks, are dedicated public servants committed to preserving our parks for all Americans' enjoyment and benefit now and in the future. They are also versatile and provide irreplaceable services during emergencies. The same employee that helps maintain park infrastructure, is also one of the first firefighters on the scene, providing invaluable information about the parks' terrain. Without this amendment, the Park Service could also lose tens of thousands of volunteers. These are dedicated citizens who contribute their time to help out in some of the most beautiful parts of the country. I have heard from a number of my constituents that they volunteer because they feel they are sharing their love of the outdoors with others and maintaining our public lands for future generations. But they warned me they would feel very different about giving their time to help support some for-profit contractor. Conservation and protection of our public lands is not a partisan issue. The majestic herd of Roosevelt Elk in my home State's Olympic National Park is a fitting reminder that throughout the past century, Republicans and Democrats have been able to come together to preserve our Nation's public lands. In that spirit, I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment, and vote to prevent the ``outsourcing'' of the stewardship of our natural treasures. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced article in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak to the issue of protecting a woman's right to choose. I am here to reiterate what the majority of us in the Senate clearly expressed this spring on behalf of women when we voted on an amendment to S. 3, sponsored by the good Senator from Iowa, my colleague Senator Harkin. That amendment--in no uncertain terms--reaffirmed the sense of the Senate that No. 1, abortion has been a legal and constitutionally protected medical procedure throughout the United States since the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade; and No. 2, 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. Let me repeat that. A majority of my colleagues voted for the Senator Harkin amendment. That the House remove the amendment from S. 3 is a travesty and I must vehemently disagree with that action. It is incumbent upon the majority of those of us in this chamber who affirm the constitutional right to choose to send a clear message to the House as the bill goes to conference that Roe is still--and will continue to be--the supreme law of the land. My colleague from the State of California, Senator Boxer, has been a true champion on this issue. She is an unwavering and tireless advocate for women, the country--and the world over. On Monday, she revisited how we found ourselves in the position we are now. As Senator Boxer explained, the House returned S. 3 to the Senate without the Harkin amendment affirming Roe. Because S. 3 is at the heart of this issue, I would like to spend some of my time speaking to this underlying bill, which is undoubtedly and unfortunately going to end up on the President's desk and which the President will most assuredly sign. If the President signs S. 3, he will be signing an unconstitutional measure into law. As I have said before, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, Roe v. Wade held 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 abortion as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is in danger. Yet the legislation that comes before us and will go to the President lacks that important health exception and, therefore, fails to provide for a woman when her health or her life is in danger. In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the importance of this health exception in Stanberg v. Carhart, which determined that a Nebraska law banning the performance of so-called ``partial birth'' abortions violated the Roe ruling by the Supreme Court. 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. 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. I fundamentally believe that private medical decision 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, but this will 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. 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 woman of America have the right to privacy and receive the best medical attention available. I urge my colleagues to disagree with the actions of the House and demand that the amendment expressing the Sense of the Senate that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided be included in S. 3.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, issued rules making changes to long- standing limits on the types and amounts of media outlets that can be owned and controlled by a single company. These rule changes drastically increase the ability of a few companies to control access to information in this country. The rule changes undermine the public interest and do nothing to ensure diversity of viewpoints, ``localism,'' coverage of events in local communities by people who are a part of that community, or to ensure that healthy competition exists amongst media outlets. The American people know these changes are not in the public interest, and that is why I have heard directly from more than 1,650 of my constituents urging Congress to overturn the FCC's actions. Specifically, the rule changes adopted by the FCC earlier this year would allow a single company to control television stations with access to almost half of the American broadcast audience. How that can be billed as increasing competition or diversity of viewpoint is a mystery. Given that these rules were written with only one public hearing and without opportunity for public comment, it is not surprising that they fail to reflect the public interest. It is important to recognize that overturning these rules is not just about preventing additional domination of the airwaves. It is about ensuring the survival of local newspapers that genuinely know and are a part of the community. The rule changes would allow the sole or dominant newspaper in a city to merge with the top broadcaster in 200 of the 210 media markets in the country! That would mean 98 percent of the American public could effectively lose an independent voice in their community. Already, since 1975, two thirds of independent newspaper owners have ceased to exist, leaving only 290 independent newspapers in a country of 292 million people. If these rules are allowed to take effect, it will mean fewer reporters on the ground chasing stories in our local communities, and less local investigative journalism. It would make it possible for individual markets to be dominated by a single newspaper/TV conglomerate which could control well over half the news audience and two-thirds of the reporters in a given local market. Inevitably, the merging of broadcasters and newspapers reduces the number of voices in individual markets and threatens to place too much control over local news and information in the hands of too few companies. Repackaging and repeating stories produced in other venues is not the same as real reporting of local news. One of the most common refrains that we hear to justify this tremendous change is that new outlets for news and information are now available. While I firmly believe that we are only at the cusp of an information age that will drastically change how we receive information, it makes no difference if the new access points are controlled by fewer people. The reaction to these rules has been quick and sure. I have heard from over 1,650 of my constituents directly, an additional 10,000 through the Move On petition. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committee have taken action to reverse the increase in the cap on broadcast audience in the appropriations process, and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted implementation of these rules. But the clearest way to send a message to the FCC that these rules cannot stand is to pass this resolution disapproving the rule changes. We expect the FCC to be a watchdog not a lapdog. I urge my colleagues to vote for this resolution as a first step in reinvigorating competition and preserving local control in mass media.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, 2 years ago, our Nation was brutally attacked by terrorists. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children lost their lives on September 11, 2001, in New York, the Washington, DC, area, and Pennsylvania. This week, we honor the memories of those lost, and remember the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and other loved ones who will never return to their families. Yet in the midst of that tragedy, we were reminded about what makes America strong. Firefighters raced into the doomed towers of the World Trade Center, saving thousands of lives, although they would be unable to reach safety themselves. At the Pentagon, even as part of their building burned, the men and women of the military command stayed at their desks to help coordinate information and keep the country's armed forces on high alert. Over Pennsylvania, a group of strangers joined together to fight back against their attackers and saved countless lives by giving their own. Our strength has always come from the capacity of average Americans to rise to acts of heroism to protect neighbor and stranger alike. Now, our security derives from regular people in a wide range of jobs, in addition to the brave men and women of the armed forces. From Customs agents, to cops on the beat, to baggage screeners, million of U.S. citizens have important roles to play in keeping our country safe. Today, the fight against terror continues. We face an elusive enemy, willing and eager to take any measure and to murder innocent civilians. To them, the freedoms we enjoy represent opportunities to attack our society and way of life. This week we remember why we have been drawn into this fight--so that no more families must mourn the loss of loved ones to terror attacks. As we continue this struggle, it is imperative that we do so in a manner befitting a nation of laws. By doing so, we will send a powerful message to the rest of the world: America will not yield to terrorists, and the principles of freedom and democracy will not be bowed by their cowardly tactics. Together, we will prevail.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education. I came to the floor today to offer an amendment to increase dislocated worker formula funds in order to create new job training opportunities for dislocated workers. Given the continued job losses nationwide, increasing funds to retrain workers is critical--both for workers and for the businesses that are hiring workers. Our national unemployment rate is now 6.1 percent, which is close to the highest it has been in 9 years. Since the recession started in January 2001, we have lost more than three million private sector jobs, and these job losses continue. In my State, Boeing announced over 600 layoffs in July. In August, it announced over 500 more. And it has plans to cut a total of 5,000 jobs nationally by the end of the year. These funds are clearly needed to get Americans back to work. I am pleased that my colleagues and I have reached an agreement to include an additional $25 million in this bill for the Dislocated Worker formula funds. Clearly, I would have liked to secure additional funding, but recognize that the bill includes many worthy priorities and that funds are extremely tight. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to secure this funding increase in the final version of the bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two State Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation. Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79-percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair. The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resource Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records. But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year. To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage. Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personally identifying information does not match the information on file with the business. This bill fixes that problem. The Identify Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need. The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses State lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case. My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or State law enforcement or Federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with State and local law enforcement agencies. Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft. Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft. My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred. The bill leaves in place State laws that are more stringent and provides that either Federal prosecutors or State Attorney Generals may enforce this law. Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft. The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes. We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft. There is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two State Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation. Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79-percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair. The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resource Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records. But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year. To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage. Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personally identifying information does not match the information on file with the business. This bill fixes that problem. The Identify Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need. The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses State lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case. My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or State law enforcement or Federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with State and local law enforcement agencies. Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft. Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft. My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred. The bill leaves in place State laws that are more stringent and provides that either Federal prosecutors or State Attorney Generals may enforce this law. Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft. The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes. We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft. There is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object, I know the leadership on both sides of the aisle would like to proceed on last year's Senate Energy bill. This Senator believes we have just begun to have debate on two important issues that have emerged since that legislation was passed by this body. The first issue is we now know for a fact, proven by the Federal Regulatory Commission, by the Department of Justice, and by Enron's own memos, that market manipulation has occurred. The 2002 Energy bill does not address that issue. This body will need to come back and address that issue. I am happy to address it in another forum, but I am hearing a commitment from leadership on both sides that we will come back and address this issue. The second issue: The Federal Regulatory Commission, since the passage of the 2002 act, issued a rule calling for the implementation of mandatory regional transmission organizations and standard market design. For my colleagues who do not understand what that means, it means a national grid where your region's cheap, affordable electricity at cost-based rates might be displaced by the highest bidder of an energy company that wants to sell its more expensive energy in your State. The 2002 bill does not address that. We need to address the fact that we do not want FERC to proceed on an order mandating regional transmission organizations with standard market design. That is what some of my amendments dealt with; that is what some of the underlying bill dealt with. That is not in the 2002 version. I will not object at this time based on agreement that I have heard from my leadership and the majority leadership that we will have an opportunity to address both of those issues in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL. Reserving the right to object.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two state Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation. Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79 percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair. The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resources Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records. But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year. To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage. Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personal identifying information does not match the information on file with the business. This bill fixes that problem. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need. The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses state lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case. My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or state law enforcement or federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with state and local law enforcement agencies. Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft. Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft. My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred. The bill leaves in place state laws that are more stringent and provides that either federal prosecutors or State Attorneys General may enforce this law. Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft. The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes. We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I know my colleagues have now for the last hour discussed the fact that we need to move on an energy plan and yet allow Members to have some discussion of policy. While I think we now have a proposal to discuss, it is important to point out we were very willing to talk about an electricity title. We were very willing last night, while the Senate wanted to debate judges--and I sat here as my Republican colleagues spoke for hours--I was willing to offer an amendment on electricity. People are talking about moving ahead on an Energy bill because it is good for our economy, because it will help with supply. While we were sitting here wasting our time yesterday talking about judges, another company in my State with 700 workers from Bellingham, WA, temporarily shut down their facility. Why? Because of the high cost of electricity in our State. So this is not about a problem that might happen. It is a problem that has already happened. The parliamentary, procedural ruse that has been played on us to not go to the electricity title has been incredible. I was standing here, waiting to offer amendments, only to find out that we were going to go to a judge. Yes, the Senator from New Mexico was right; we wanted to go to the electricity title. But we didn't even have the language from his proposal when we left town last week on Friday night. It wasn't even available Friday until late Friday night. So, yes, as soon as we got that language we started poring through it. Now the question is whether this body wants to debate an electricity title, whether they want to consider the issues at hand. Last night, the amendment I wanted to offer was actually shared with the minority staff. The majority staff is now saying we don't know what amendments are going to be offered. We had seven amendments to file this morning, only to find out they are no longer in order because of the motion to commit in the document that is now available only in two copies of 800 pages, making it impossible for us to offer our second- degree amendments. What happened when we shared what we wanted to offer in an amendment? We ended up getting an e-mail threat back from the majority side saying, if you offer your amendment, we are going to do X to you. So much for sharing ideas about amendments. It is no secret this Senator from the State of Washington, who believes this underlying electricity title could potentially move higher cost electricity onto the transmission lines in my State and ultimately force my consumers to pay a higher rate, doesn't like the electricity title and wants to see it changed. This Senator from Washington State does not believe that my State should be forced into that kind of regional transmission organization planning or standard market design planning in which my region might get charged higher electricity rates while the State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal. Yes, that is right. The State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal because they are exempted from that section on regional transmission organizations and standard market design. If this electricity title is so good for all of America, why isn't it good for Texas? That is because Texas does not want to share in this plan. They don't want to share their power, and they don't want to necessarily have their transmission lines with higher cost energy on them. I don't want it in my region. But I know this: If it is good for me, it ought to be good for them. The bottom line is the other side of the aisle doesn't want to take the time to hear about electricity amendments and debate them. With the west coast economy getting a $6 billion black eye, that is $6 billion that the ratepayers have had to pay because of increased energy prices, when the market has been knowingly manipulated. That was admitted to by Enron, admitted to by the Department of Justice citing Enron's manipulation, it has been admitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that such manipulation has happened. We ought to have our day here on the Senate floor. The distinguished majority leader said let's not talk about the politics of this. But I have to say I don't want to stand here and be part of what he is labeling as obstruction when this is the body to which my constituents look to have their issues debated. This is the place where we come to represent constituents. This is their opportunity to be heard. I am their representative. I have the right to offer amendments dealing with one of the biggest pyramid schemes, financial crises to affect the Northwest. I deserve to be heard. My constituents deserve to be heard. My constituents did not get invited to a meeting at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney to talk about the energy plan. They were not invited. My constituents didn't get a password code to get on the conference call with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when they discussed with Wall Street financiers of Enron what legal standard they were going to use in reviewing the contracts of Enron, and whether ratepayers were going to get relief. My constituents didn't get that password code. We didn't get to be on that call. My constituents don't have high-paid lobbyists like the Weststar Company, which is under Federal investigation for their donations to various political groups that were all keyed around trying to influence the energy policy of this body. We may not win on our amendments about market manipulation and improving the way energy policy is regulated, but, by God, we deserve to be heard on this Senate floor and have a debate about electricity. You cannot have an amendment like that of Senator Dayton that basically is trying to stop the repeal of the consumer protection law that is currently on the books, that the Domenici underlying title erases, and not have a debate on that. How can you not have a debate on the Dayton amendment that stops the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act? As the Washington Post said yesterday in a headline on the front page of the business section: ``Energy Monoliths Could Return.'' There was more debate yesterday in the Washington Post about the Dayton amendment trying to stop the return of this monolith than there has been on the floor of the Senate. I think the public should get their due. They paid $6 billion. Gee, for $6 billion in increased power rates you ought to at least give them a couple of days on the Senate floor to talk about these issues. These issues are a significant change to current law. The whole notion of regional transmission organizations and standard market design is a move toward deregulation that this body ought to understand and understand well. Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided even though the markets had been manipulated they were not going to give relief to west coast ratepayers, we have not even had a hearing. We have not even had a hearing. That was just a few weeks ago. For 2\1/2\ years my colleague and staff member, Angela Becker- Dippman, and myself have probably paid more attention to the energy issue than just about anybody in this body, save maybe the California Members. Why? Because a crisis happened in our State starting in late 2000, and we lobbied for price caps. We asked, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Give our State relief. It took them a year plus, a year and a half before they finally came in with any relief. Then people said it was all about supply and don't worry, it is all going to get straightened out. It is not about manipulation. Nobody manipulated anything. Then we find out they actually manipulated something and admitted it. They said: Don't worry, you'll have your day. It will all go before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They will take care of it. Something will happen. They have done nothing to protect the consumers once that manipulation was known. They have done nothing. They have done nothing but get on a phone call with the financiers of the Enron deal and say to them, in private password conversations: Don't worry, you'll be protected. So, yes, my amendments deserve debate. We are not going to be an apologist for Enron, nor condone their actions. But we should have a healthy policy debate about: No. 1, whether this country needs more deregulation of the energy industry. Why not have that debate? Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle actually believe there should be deregulation. I don't agree with them. What is wrong with having that debate? No. 2, we ought to debate whether we have enough consumer protection in this legislation to protect from future market manipulation that might happen as we continue to see the rise in natural gas prices. We should have that debate. No. 3, we could have a debate about whether we really understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design actually do. I can't tell you how many people in California thought it was no big deal about how most of the legislators didn't really understand what was going on in the legislation and went ahead and passed it only to then find out that basically they had turned electricity over to the free market. Electricity isn't just a commodity; it is a necessity. People need it. They cannot be gouged by high prices. That is exactly what has happened. We ought to debate whether we understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design really do. I am all for joining with my colleagues if they want to make this a voluntary experiment. If they want to make this section of the electricity title voluntary, I am happy to make it voluntary. But it is not voluntary now. It is a mandate. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came up with hearings, with pricing schemes, and with a rule that would ultimately go into place after 2005. So wait 2 years to get your plans in place and then implement them. As the Senator from North Dakota adequately explained, this isn't about whether we are going to build a national grid system and whether cheap electricity in his region is going to get displaced by more costly electricity from somewhere else and forced on his consumers. Why should he agree to that? We need to have a debate about whether we really know and understand where this title is leading us. I am happy to do that. I am happy to do it. More importantly, I am happy to do it on Saturday. My constituents deserve to be heard on this issue. When they are stuck with a 56-percent rate increase for the next 5 years because they signed an Enron contract and they get no relief from the Federal Government, they deserve to be heard. When Enron can turn around and sue them to continually force my ratepayers to pay a higher rate on manipulated contracts, they deserve to be heard. I am not being an obstructionist. The majority leader talked about doing something in the public interest. This is about the public interest. This is about saying this body is going to protect consumers from market manipulation. We are not going to guess at it. We are not going to pretend that we know. We are not going to pass something the Attorney General from New York sends us a letter about basically saying, Excuse me. Thanks for your hard work, but you are not getting it done. Your language not only doesn't protect us enough but it might actually undermine the current State laws that are in place. Or a letter from the National Securities Exchange executive saying the same thing. The National Securities Exchange doesn't say they think the language in the underlying bill curtails their efforts on getting the kind of oversight that needs to happen to protect consumers from market manipulation. I couldn't disagree more with the majority leader. I supported the Energy bill last year. I wanted to get it out here. I didn't like everything in it. I was willing to compromise to move something ahead. But a financial disaster happened in my State and it is going to continue for years to come. This electricity title on which the majority party has filed a motion to commit prohibits us from offering those amendments. Maybe our leadership is in the back room working out some sort of agreement. Maybe they are back there saying let us start backward on the electricity title. Maybe they are bifurcating some of these issues about supply. But why not say to the American public we are going to make clear to you there is no doubt that this isn't a supply issue, and we have made sure manipulation has been taken care of? We cannot leave here giving the American people the impression that if you have enough money you can rely on the energy policy. Electricity is a necessity, and we need to fight to make it affordable. This Member will stand here for as long as it takes to make sure my constituents have their day on these amendments. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two state Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation. Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79 percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair. The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resources Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records. But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year. To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage. Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personal identifying information does not match the information on file with the business. This bill fixes that problem. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need. The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses state lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case. My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or state law enforcement or federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with state and local law enforcement agencies. Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft. Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft. My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred. The bill leaves in place state laws that are more stringent and provides that either federal prosecutors or State Attorneys General may enforce this law. Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft. The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes. We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft. Mr. President, there is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his question. I know he has been diligent, being at the committee hearings during the time period in which the West tried to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the policeman on the watch, if you will, when this mugging of ratepayers was happening--we tried to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that prices were too high, that we were getting gouged. The Senator was very articulate at that time and subsequently, on the Commerce Committee, holding hearings, investigating the activities of Enron. At that time, we were all speculating that manipulation happened. What has since come out is that the manipulation has been admitted to. It has been admitted to in the memos by the company in those various schemes you have talked about, and we have charts showing the names, of Death Star and Fat Boy and various other schemes. We have had the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission own up: Yes, this is market manipulation. I have a report here, that is almost too heavy to handle, that basically documents all the manipulation that has happened. We have a Department of Justice investigating and saying yes, manipulation has happened. Yet this electricity title is very scant on putting those things in place. The Senator is right. This new electricity title appeared last Friday night. I don't know what time it was, but well beyond the time, I am sure, that I was home in Washington State. We started in on it on Monday. But the bottom line is this underlying Domenici title has some language about: Let's make sure there is no false reporting. That is in the current statute. It didn't save us. It didn't have anybody stop this or basically put everybody in jail. Frankly, every time I get home, I hear from a constituent who is paying this high energy cost, paying this 61 percent or 88 percent rate increase, saying: Why isn't Ken Lay in jail? Why is it I am paying this rate increase and I am going to be paying it for 5 or 6 years and Ken Lay isn't in jail? The transparency clause here is already on the books, making sure people do not report false information to the organization known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is already on the books. The round trip trading, yes, is eliminated. But we have other schemes in this bill that are not included in the electricity title and are not outlawed. I think it should be simple. The Power Act was created to protect consumers. We decided in interstate commerce; that is, the selling of power between States, that the Federal Government should play a role in protecting consumers on wholesale power rates. We gave to the States the ability through their utility commissions the responsibility to protect consumers' electricity that is sold within each State. But we said as a Federal Government we want to make sure consumers have oversight of electricity. We said in the Federal Power Act we are going to make sure that rates are ``just and reasonable.'' That is our job--``just and reasonable.'' We set up a commission to do it. Yet now we have seen that market abuse is continuing. And we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are proposing we repeal the only consumer protection law which has been on the books since 1935--the Public Utility Holding Company Act--and in its place put some language that basically smacks the hand of Ken Lay but doesn't have any teeth in it--teeth that will really bring to justice people who have manipulated this market. We may have another day when we can discuss what kind of relief might be given to California or Oregon or Washington. But this amendment today is geared toward protecting people from future abuse by simply saying in the Power Act that manipulated schemes are not just and reasonable; that they ought to be banned in the Power Act. I don't know what is wrong with saying that. I would like to go over the specific details so my colleagues understand exactly what we are trying to say and why the current underlying title comes up short in the sense of not doing enough to protect consumers. As I said, first of all, the Power Act put in place a broad prohibition on the manipulation of electricity prices. We want to continue that. We want to make sure that in this language we say manipulated electricity prices are wrong. In the Domenici substitute, we are going to say that round-trip trading; that is, buying and selling of electricity at inflated rates and inflated volumes, is illegal. That is a good thing to do. But that is particularly focused on the shareholder. We are saying let us protect the shareholder to make sure these guys who are in this manipulative practice of buying and selling on the same day and inflating the price and inflating the volume is wrong and illegal. That is good in protecting shareholders. But how are ratepayers protected? I want to see protection for ratepayers. In particular, my amendment would add a new paragraph to the act which is based on language the Federal energy commission has had in its power since 1934. This language would make it illegal for any company to use or apply any manipulative or deceptive device to circumvent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules and regulations on market manipulation. It is simple. Let's just say it. What is wrong with saying what Enron has admitted they have done? What is wrong with saying what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has put in the report? What is wrong about saying what DOJ has said about manipulation? Why not be really clear and specific? Any company that uses or applies any manipulative or deceptive device to circumvent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules and regulations on market manipulation should be punished. Second, we want to say specifically that electricity rates resulting from manipulative practices are not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act. As we talked about last night and as some of my colleagues have said, we have the establishment of the Power Act and the protections of ``just and reasonable,'' and it is our responsibility as a Federal Government to regulate wholesale energy prices between States. Why? Because in the 1930s, guess what happened. A bunch of companies had too much power and jacked up the price on consumers. They held them hostage. Electricity is something no one should be held hostage for, and certainly no one should lose their home because of a manipulated contract by a company that put a scheme in place. We had a hearing before the Energy Committee in which I asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman, ``Do you think if you find market manipulation that it is ever going to be `just and reasonable,' or ever in the public interest?'' Chairman Wood told me, ``I can't think of an instance when it would be.'' We have the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission saying I can't think this would ever be in the public interest or ever be just and reasonable. So why not put it in the Power Act? Guess what. Chairman Wood doesn't write legislation. We write legislation. We are the body that needs to take the responsibility. We are the body that needs to say to the American people we got the message that market manipulation has occurred. My amendment would clear up any confusion and specifically declare in the Power Act that market manipulation is unjust and unreasonable. Lastly, this amendment would amend the section 206 of the Federal Power Act requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revoke the company's authority to sell at market-based rates whenever the commission finds it ``knowingly'' employs a strategy to manipulate the electricity market. It says when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finds people have manipulated a market that they revoke their market-based rates. Market-based rates is when the company decides what the rates are. As I said, we in the Northwest have been traditionally comfortable with cost-based pricing that the public Power Act provided. Why? Because consumers get the power at the cost it takes to produce it. As a former business executive, I am all for marketplace competition. But marketplace competition has to have some regulation or some people basically end up controlling the market and consumers get whacked whatever they want. In this case, we know manipulation happened. Why is this issue so important that we have to actually say to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission make sure when these contracts have been manipulated that you revoke the market-based rate authority? Believe it or not, even though Enron, months and months ago, admitted in various memos that they manipulated the market, it wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission actually revoked their market-based rate authority. Maybe it was 17 days ago. Sometime in the last 2\1/2\ weeks, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finally took the action they should have taken over a year and a half ago. We have a Federal agency that has been laggard at addressing this issue. While we will have other amendments to address the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and address the fact they have not stepped up to their appropriate role in being the policeman on the books as this mugging of ratepayers happens, because clearly they haven't--it took us, the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives pounding on them for months about the high cost of electricity in our region to finally get a mitigation plan. Over a year later it finally took the hearings of Senator Dorgan and many others and an investigation that we finally got the truth on the table that contracts were actually manipulated. Now it is going to take the effort and focus of this body to say, Let's make it simple. Let us make it really clear: Manipulation of contracts is unjust and unreasonable. Any company that employs such tactics should not have free rein of the market by having market-based rates allowed under the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is simple. I want to point out to my colleagues the fact that there are other entities that are way ahead of the game; that is, they are way ahead of us. They are way ahead of this body in saying that Enron manipulated contracts and something ought to be done about it. And that is bothersome. I think we are the protectors of the consumers in the oversight of how well an agency is doing its job and to which we have delegated the responsibility. I am sure there are people in this body who probably never heard of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission until this crisis happened. I am not sure the agency has had the bright light of day shined on it too often in its Congressional history. In fact, the Government oversight committee, then chaired by Senator Lieberman during this energy crisis, had some hearings on whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was doing its job. I thought that was very appropriate. It is very bothersome to me there are many newspaper articles and accountants of Ken Lay actually lobbying members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on whether they should have a cap or a plan in trying to control or mitigate prices in the western energy market. He lobbied for Commissioners he thought would not put a cap in place. He lobbied for people he thought would continue the trend toward deregulation of the market. I do not know why we should listen to Ken Lay's energy plan and who he thinks should be the nominees in these instances. We even have one newspaper article that suggested he was for the renomination of the current Chairman of the FERC but only if he would continue to have a free market strategy and make sure these prices that basically had been charged were kept in place. I think that is unconscionable. We need to do something to make sure this agency has our trust in the Senate and the trust of the American people. I think that is critically important. Even though my colleagues have been hearing about this crisis for a couple years and some may think it is over, it is not over for the ratepayers of Washington State. It is not over for the California economy. We are stuck with this bill. We are stuck with the impact of these manipulated prices. But I want to be clear, there are people who knew this was going on. And they have admitted it--Enron itself. Enron knew we were going to get access to this information eventually, so basically they produced the smoking gun memos where the company said it engaged in practices to manipulate the western power market. And they knew it was wrong. In fact, even when these memos were starting to be uncovered, people realized these tactics had these exaggerated names that were not going to sound too positive, so they ended up saying: Well, let's change the names. I am not sure if it was Fat Boy--oh, yes, Death Star. Death Star was the name of a tactic used to manipulate the market, and they said: Well, if that comes out maybe that won't sound like such a good name. Let's change that to Cuddly Bear. So somehow we were not going to find out there was market manipulation in place because Death Star all of a sudden became Cuddly Bear. It does not matter whether you change the code name, the impact on my State is the same. It is wrong, and this body ought to outlaw it. So when FERC finally began to investigate, they realized this problem, as their report concludes, was significant and ``epidemic,'' and the epidemic market manipulation took place in the West. Their own report says there is overwhelming evidence that suggests ``Enron and its affiliates intentionally engaged in a variety of market manipulation schemes that had profound adverse impacts on the market outcomes.'' In fact, the report goes on to say: Enron's corporate culture fostered a disregard for the American energy customer. The success of the company's trading strategies, while temporary, demonstrates the need for explicit prohibition on harmful and fraudulent market behavior and for aggressive market monitoring and enforcement. That is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is saying has transpired and what we need. It ``demonstrates the need for explicit prohibition on harmful and fraudulent market behavior and for aggressive market monitoring and enforcement.'' It is not FERC's job to write the law. It is FERC's job to enforce it and interpret it. Our job is to act. They are telling us they need to have this market behavior monitored and enforced, and that this problem demonstrates the need for an explicit prohibition. Let's give them that explicit prohibition. Let's put into the Federal Power Act that the manipulation of prices cannot be just and reasonable and companies that participate in that practice do not deserve to have market-based rates. As I mentioned, FERC just came to this conclusion recently, so it is a little troubling that it took them so long, after so much damage has been done--$3-plus billion to the California economy, over $1 billion to the Washington economy, and billions more to Oregon and, I am sure, other parts of the West. So we don't want them to be confused or slow to pick up the regulatory framework and to use it as a hammer against these kinds of manipulations. So let's make it really clear. DOJ thinks this manipulation is wrong. The U.S. Department of Justice believes what Enron did was, as they said, wrong and fraudulent. The Department of Justice continues to conduct investigations into Enron's activities. It has filed criminal charges levied against 16 different employees, most recently resulting in one of those 16 arrested, a trading desk manager. Already, two Enron traders have pleaded guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. And charges are pending against another. So DOJ knows it is wrong. Yet in the electricity title we have not put in strict enough language to prevent it from happening again. One of the most recent criminal complaints filed against an Enron trader by the U.S. Attorney's Office says: Based on the facts, there is probable cause to conclude that between approximately June 1999 and January 2001 the Enron trader unlawfully conspired to commit and did commit acts in violation of the Federal law. There is probable cause to conclude that the trader committed the offense of wire fraud in violation to title 18, United States Code, and conspired to commit the offense of wire fraud in the northern districts of California and elsewhere. The Department of Justice knows these acts are manipulative and illegal. The fact that they only have two people indicted so far--and we still don't have justice as it relates to Ken Lay; and it was the diligence of those on the west coast and Members here saying manipulation went on--bothers me; it has taken so long. So I certainly want to make sure there is no question that we think these activities are wrong and that something should be done about it. That is why we need tough language. Now, this body did its job as it relates to the auditing of regulators and reform after Enron. This CRS report for Congress-- basically that is part of the report about the Sarbanes-Oxley act-- talked about how we stepped up and did our job as it related to the auditing and accounting practices of these organizations. Now, why was that important? It was important because not only did ratepayers get gouged, but people counted on those companies and their truthful reporting in their businesses. And the investors investing in those businesses counted on that truthful reporting. We uncovered that there was a lot of manipulation going on there as well. There was a lot of misinformation about what really was the cash and capital of these companies and whether the investments by investors really should have been made, given that the long-term outlook of the companies was not based on real numbers but on these manipulated schemes. So what did we do? We didn't repeal accounting laws that were on the books to protect consumers. We stepped up and said: Let's make this stronger. Let's get the Sarbanes-Oxley act in place. In fact, the act creates a new oversight board for auditors. It prohibits auditing firms from providing certain consulting work for auditing clients so there is no conflict of interest in who they work for. It requires the rotation of all the partners. It imposes new regulations on corporate boards and executives. It increases government oversight and criminal penalties. We took tough action as it related to the auditors. We protected the shareholders moving forward from having this kind of scheme from an auditing perspective happen again. If we were so ready to jump on this issue as it related to the auditing practices and the accounting practices of these companies, and we protected the shareholders and the individuals who may have had pension plans or investments in these companies, why aren't we now going to protect the ratepayers who actually got gouged with the high cost of these contracts? Why aren't we going to say this is so egregious that we should never allow it to happen again; that we, the Congress, believe that we are no apologists for Enron? We are not going to condone market manipulation. We are going to say, just as we did with accounting rules and auditing rules, we are going to have in the Power Act the same message; that manipulating contracts is unjust and unreasonable and anybody who participates in market manipulation does not get to have free market power under the Power Act. It is simple. Let me talk about what is in here because I believe Chairman Domenici and his staff probably did try to say that some manipulations happen and we ought to do something about it. But I don't think we have covered the full gamut of issues that need to be covered. The Domenici amendment refers to round-trip trading. Round-trip trading is simultaneously buying and selling electricity to stimulate both the amount of electricity trading that was going on and to stimulate and increase the price. So the Domenici amendment says round-trip trading is wrong. And that is good. It is good that we took one of these schemes and shot a hole into it and said this is wrong. But there are many other schemes that are not covered under the Domenici title: Fat Boy, also known as Icing Load, to create real-time power markets. According to Enron's own memos dated December 6 and December 8, 2000, Fat Boy was ``one of the most fundamental strategies used by the traders.'' According to one, ``the oldest trick in the book'' and ``is now being used by other market participants.'' What Fat Boy did, when you boil it down, is Enron submitted false power supply schedules to the California ISO--the California organization in which power was bought and sold--and other market participants for the purpose of receiving payments when it didn't actually need the extra generation. So in essence Enron received untold millions of dollars for pretending to keep the lights on in the West when it really didn't need to. There is nothing in this current Domenici title that prohibits Fat Boy from happening. Yes, you say, you can't lie to FERC. There is nothing in the act that says you can't lie to the California ISO, which is exactly what Enron did under the Fat Boy scheme. That was the whole point of California deregulation. That is what people went to the legislature and sold them, just as they are trying to sell us. Hey, guess what, California. If you deregulate, market competition is going to drive down the price. And we will create this mechanism, the California ISO, which stands for the independent system operator. We are going to make this scheme where an independent system operator is going to get you cheap electricity. And all those people in the marketplace who want to sell power and sell it at a cheap price, we are going to drive down the price. That is not what happened. The price went up. It escalated. So they defrauded the California ISO. There is nothing in this underlying bill that protects the ratepayers from having Fat Boy happen again because it does nothing to prohibit lying under these kinds of schemes to the California ISO or any other organization like that. Richochet was also known as Ping Pong. The sole purpose of this scheme was to evade California's attempts to put price controls in place. Knowing that FERC wasn't really paying attention, they were given market-based rates. They said: Go out and see if you can drive down the price of electricity. And under this scheme, basically to get out of the price controls that California was trying to put in place and control, the traders, instead of trading within the State of California, would ship their power outside of the State and then ship it back in. Yes, that is right, just like the ping pong ball, back and forth on a ping pong table, pushing power to one side and pushing it back--Ricochet. If we push it out of California, then we are not subject to those State regulations, and guess what. When we ship the power back in, we can ship it in at the price we want. That way we avoid the caps of the California ISO and the power exchange that is trying to enforce them. So the prohibition on round-tripping in the Domenici bill does nothing to prohibit Ricochet or Ping Pong from happening again. This kind of practice of shipping out of State and shipping back in is not illegal under the Domenici title. But it will be under the Cantwell- Bingaman amendment if this body will adopt it. Let me talk about Death Star for a second. That is the one, yes, renamed Cuddly Bear. I don't care what you call it, there is no way the American public, the public in Washington State, doesn't know that this wasn't a cuddly bear. This was an unbelievable scheme that has ruined our economy. The essential strategy of Death Star was for Enron to earn money by lying about its transmission needs, scheduling transmission in the opposite direction of the congestion. No energy, however, is actually put on the grid or taken off, according to the company's own memos. So wait a minute. We were saying to people this is what is going to be on the grid, but then we don't really put it on the grid. The U.S. Attorney's Office described in a June court paper that Enron submitted schedules to the ISO that pretended to move the electrons owned by Enron, but in reality it didn't. Because of this, it appeared to relieve congestion. So the ISO awarded Enron congestion relief payments. Basically by pretending it was putting power out there to relieve congestion, which it really didn't, the ISO gave them relief payments. The ISO was deceived because part of the looping scheme was outside of California and, therefore, it couldn't be detected, thereby costing more money. According to the Department of Justice, senior Enron traders denied they were doing this practice or violating any market rules. So basically what we are saying is that there were people at Enron who told other fine people who probably worked at Enron and who were trying to do their jobs, there is nothing wrong with this. This is totally OK to do. One of the trading managers was smart enough and said: We are worried that the details of the strategy would be leaked to the ISO and other power companies or the public. One of the consequences of his concern was that he was instructed to refrain from calling this Death Star. That is when they said: Gee, employees are getting nervous about this scheme; they don't think it is right. Let's change the name to Cuddly Bear and maybe everybody will be OK with it. Well, we are not OK with it. The underlying Domenici electricity title does not prohibit Death Star from happening again. Only the Cantwell-Bingaman amendment will do that. Load shifting was another ploy. To employ this tactic, Enron would distort its transmission schedule to create the appearance of congestion, or knowingly increase the congestion cost to all market participants. Again, more misinformation. The underlying Domenici title says nothing of falsified information provided to the FERC. Well, FERC already has language in there about reporting. It didn't get them to stop Enron from following these practices. It doesn't require or make illegal any of these practices of providing misinformation to the California ISO. Remember, the California ISO was an organization that basically was created after deregulation. After deregulation, people went to the California Legislature and said: We will create a mechanism where the marketplace buys and sells power at a cheap rate. We will let the market do it. Under the California ISO, the independent system operators basically were supposed to help control price. That is where the misinformation was, where the lying and fabrication of information took place. This underlying bill does nothing to protect or say that those kinds of activities to the California ISO, an independent system operator, are illegal. It has no teeth as it relates to that. So nothing in this underlying Domenici electricity title will protect us from load shifting. The Cantwell-Bingaman amendment will. Get Shorty. Like many Americans, I thought this was a title of a movie. I thought it was supposed to be a joke. But in my State it was not a joke to the ratepayers who actually had a premium price increase. Basically, what they did was they gambled that it would be able to find service at a cheaper price the next day. Enron's own memos admitted that ``this was obviously a sensitive issue because of reliability concerns.'' Indeed, the company stated that it would be ``difficult to justify our position if the lights go out because these services were not available, and the reason was because we were selling them without actually having them in the first place.'' They basically were saying: We are going to have a scheme where we are going to say there is power available when there is not. And then when the lights went out, they knew they were going to have concerns. They knew. How they could think the west coast economy would not be reached by this havoc being laid upon them. I cannot understand. I cannot understand the corporate greed that goes into this kind of thinking--that somehow this kind of marketing strategy would be good for California, good for Washington, good for America, good for corporate business, good for our confidence as a country--confidence that we as a government are going to say this kind of manipulation is wrong. It has created a huge deal of unrest in the West. Nothing in the Domenici electricity title prevents Get Shorty from happening. Wheel Out. I am not sure what marketer came up with this one. Enron would submit schedules for a transmission on line they knew was out of service. In doing so, the company would earn extra payments for their trouble. It is not even available. It is sort of like a cab driver heading straight for a traffic jam in order to keep the meter running on an unsuspecting tourist, basically saying: I am going to get you into congestion and it is going to cost you a lot. The poor passenger in the car doesn't know there is a quicker route, a cheaper way, a more expedient way to control the cost. But unlike a cab ride, the costs of this are not in the tens of dollars but in the millions of dollars, and the cost to our economy has been in the billions of dollars. There is nothing in the Domenici underlying amendment that would prohibit the Wheel Out strategy from happening again. The Cantwell-Bingaman amendment says that the Wheel Out strategy is manipulation of the market--it is manipulation. Under the Federal Power Act, it cannot be just and reasonable that companies that deploy these kinds of practices should not have market-based rates. I hope there are not any more schemes. I hope I don't have any more charts because this is enough. This is enough of the tactics that were deployed by a company that basically thought that making a few more dollars through manipulative practices was somehow OK to do. I read some of those quotes from employees at Enron who said: I don't think this is right; I think this is a concern. Yet they continued. So the Cantwell-Bingaman amendment, which is supported by Senators Hollings, Murray, Boxer, Feinstein, and others, simply says let's put into the Power Act that manipulation is not just and reasonable. We have had lots of support: The Northwest Public Power Association, Northwest Energy Coalition, AARP, Consumers Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Consumers for Fair Competition, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and many other organizations, such as members of the AFL-CIO, and many people who are concerned about the economic impact of manipulation happening prospectively on natural gas. Why won't somebody just take this experiment that happened in California and the West and say, OK, we will--with the current Domenici language, Congress barely smacks the hands of those Enron traders. Gee, only one of them went to jail. I guess you have to be smart enough not to be the one who gets caught with a memo on an electronic file on your computer, and, guess what? You will get out of this. So let's take this same kind of scheme and deploy it for natural gas. That is what this amendment is about. This amendment is about saying that natural gas in the future will have better protections of consumers in mind regarding potential rate increases. So, if we have an increase in natural gas prices, maybe because of shortage of supply, guess what, we will really know that it is about shortage of supply. We will really know. We will be able to tell consumers in America that we really know it was about not having enough supply; it was not because some natural gas producer had tons of supply but manipulated the market through a variety of schemes and somehow gouged consumers, and that is why your rates are higher. Can we not give the American consumer that kind of confidence about our energy? I sure hope we can. This issue has a real impact on people, and I know my colleagues are in the Chamber, and they want to speak, but I wish to share one letter from an 11-year-old girl whom I met almost a year and a half ago. I did not know at the time she had sent this letter, but she lives in a region of the State where they have had a 71 percent rate increase--a huge increase. This 11-year-old girl sent an emotional letter about how the crisis was affecting her family, that her mom was living paycheck to paycheck. That actually the job her mom had was dependent upon affordable electricity. She wrote: This is the first time I've lived in a house. This is the most important thing in my life, that we get to live in a house. Please listen to what might happen to hundreds of kids, including myself, when my mom might lose her job and we might have to move out of our house. The impact is being felt by young children, not just by the parents who might lose their job. Not just by the Snohomish County ratepayers who had 44 percent disconnect notices, but by young children who are fearful that their families are not going to make it because these schemes caused these rate increases that we are stuck with for years and years. There is somebody sitting in their office somewhere in America saying: Gee, why don't you just sue those Enron people? Why don't you just sue them and tell them that under the Federal law, they cannot manipulate these contracts? I think people in America would be surprised to know that Enron is suing these utilities. Enron is turning around and suing these utilities and forcing them to pay these rate increases. They are suing the Snohomish County public utility district, saying: That contract--that has been manipulated--that you signed for 5 years of power, even though it is manipulated and you are paying a 54- percent increase, we are not letting you out of that contract; we are suing you. This is the only body that can protect people in the future. It is only the Senate and the Congress that can say: This manipulation is wrong. This manipulation, moving forward, is wrong. Then ratepayers in my State in the future, if this happens, might have a chance. We have had letters from senior citizens who are trying to live on a fixed income. This burden has made them make decisions about how they are going to live in the future. One woman from Okanogan County said: My friends, myself, and my neighbors cannot afford the higher rates: I am in a total panic because I am disabled and barely can pay for heat now. With these rates going up as much, it will make it a life-threatening situation. This will become a public health disaster. To make matters worse, many businesses are planning on shutting down here due to the terrible economy and the power costs. This is putting the last nail in our coffin in a dire economic situation in Omak,

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL. How much time is remaining?