Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. That is correct. My colleagues from throughout the West are very concerned that they have ample time to express their opinion about the electricity title and this particular amendment. So if you want to limit it to an hour tonight, we will use the 2 hours tomorrow to give my colleagues a chance to speak.

Ms. CANTWELL. If I could clarify, I don't know whether we will actually physically lay down the amendment tonight or the first thing at 9 a.m., but we will talk about the amendment, use that 1 hour tonight, and use the 2 hours according to the agreement.

Ms. CANTWELL. It is impacting people in my State. One of the largest employers in the State, the Boeing Company, has their major manufacturing base located in that particular county. In that county, they have made it clear they planned to build the next generation plane. They are not sure whether they are going to build that plane there or even in Washington State. What is on the list of issues about which they are concerned? The cost of energy, the high cost of energy. So again, individual ratepayers are suffering. Businesses are suffering. Businesses may decide the long-term investment in Washington State isn't worth it just because Enron manipulated contracts at a time my consumers and my businesses needed affordable electricity. We are here tonight to talk about this situation and what the Senate is going to do about it. It is clear we are not doing enough. I think there are newspapers all over the country who basically have said we are not doing enough about it. The New York Times said, ``This energy crisis dims small business hopes.'' This is an administration that wants to get the economy on the right track. How can you get the economy on the right track if you won't do anything about manipulated energy contracts? Basically, they say the ``perfect storm is creating a return of the energy crisis,'' and ``power cuts in the cold winter ahead for those struggling to pay for electricity.'' Just like I said, in Snohomish County, with a 44 percent increase in disconnect notices and an energy crunch, the Northwest might face another power crisis. ``Costs hit home for the energy crisis'' is in the San Francisco Chronicle. Believe me, we are going to hear from my colleagues from California tomorrow about how this crisis has impacted them. Again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can spend as much time as they want talking about the need for future energy supply, which I am all for. About the fact that we should have been building more supply. That is fine. But you have to address the issue. The issue is these contracts were manipulated. They were schemed. The American people will come to know them by name--Get Shorty, Fat Boy, and a variety of others. That might seem humorous to some people, but it is not humorous when real people suffer the consequences. We are not doing enough about it. So what else have newspapers said? The shocking thing is they basically are saying what I think some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, want to deny. I am not sure exactly why they don't want to address it. But they say, ``Enron met with energy regulators during the crisis.'' ``Enron monitor failed to do the job.'' ``Federal energy regulators inept,'' this says. ``Enron execs often called the FERC brass during crisis.'' What is going on here is we have had this incredible lobbying effort by Enron in getting FERC commissioners and doing nothing about this crisis, and playing an overexcessive role. Now we have the choice as Members of the Senate as to whether we are going to stand up and do something about this. I am outraged and I have been outraged about this issue for some time, because I go home almost every weekend and I see the real consequences of this problem. But even that pales in comparison to the steps I think this body is going to mistakenly take if it passes the Domenici electricity title as it is. Mr. President, the Domenici electricity title as it is does nothing to protect consumers on power generation. The Domenici electricity title basically takes the only consumer protection law on the books-- the Public Utility Holding Company Act--and repeals it. The good Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, tried to say: ``Are you sure we want to do that because I don't think we should?'' If you are going to change the oversight of these utilities, you ought to put some protections in place. When they do these mergers, maybe we ought to figure out a way that we have some oversight of this and protect it. We will have some other amendments--Senator Dayton's and some of mine--that say, listen, we cannot go far enough in protecting consumers. How could you go too far in protecting consumers when we have had one of the biggest energy schemes in our country's history just unfold in the last couple of years? I applaud this body for passing new accounting requirements. I applaud giving the SEC more to do on accountability, making sure that books are not cooked, that schemes are not put into place. I applaud the Attorney General from New York for his aggressive action in making sure that those who have been participating from the financial side in helping to portray to the American people that somehow these companies were healthy, when in fact all they were deploying were buying-and- selling schemes with inflated pricing. I applaud all of that. But what this bill fails to do is take a similar step. It fails to take a similar step because it is repealing the only consumer protection bill we have for electricity. So how did we get there? Some of my colleagues mentioned the Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. During the Roosevelt era, guess what? We saw the same thing. No surprise. A bunch of energy companies had total control of the market, created a pyramid scheme, jacked up the price on consumers. Guess what? The Roosevelt administration said: We cannot tolerate this. Consumers need to be protected. So 1935 might seem like a long time ago to some of my colleagues, but I know one thing--too much concentration of power by a free market does not deliver affordable energy. My State is a big believer in cost-based pricing. We have a lot of public power. That public power provides us with affordable energy. I am not opposed to market-based rates. I am not opposed to the free enterprise system. As a former businesswoman, I like the marketplace where businesses can compete and where competition exists, where anybody gets nervous when there is too much consolidation and when there is no oversight. So, basically, what we have here in the last 2 years is more of a move toward market-based pricing, without the regulatory oversight. I would love to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who think State utility commissions don't have a responsible role in making sure that utility rates are not too high and too expensive. I would love to hear from my colleagues that somehow they don't think the Federal Government should play a role in wholesale rates and in assuring consumers that wholesale rates are just and reasonable. But I can tell you this. There is nothing just and reasonable about manipulating contracts. Even Patrick Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said so before the Energy Committee: ``Yes, that is right, Senator Cantwell, contracts that have been manipulated cannot be just and reasonable.'' So why don't we do something about taking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and strengthening it? Why don't we smack them on the hand and say actually you have not done your job, because if you want to go through the sequencing--the issue is that in this timeframe of the explosion of the California market and the crisis and the problem, what happened is prices rose to that exorbitant 300 percent increase. We all started saying we need to do something about this; we need to have some sort of price cap or price mitigation. In fact, my predecessor, Slade Gorton, and several other Senators, actually wrote letters saying we need to do something about this energy crisis. The former Energy Secretary, now the Governor of New Mexico, also said we have to do something to stop this manipulation of pricing. The prices actually started unfolding in May of 2000 even though a variety of people said there is important business to do here. Secretary Richardson, in December of 2000, 4 or 5 months later, said this is an emergency and we need to do something about it. The next day FERC basically decides they are going to deny a request to do anything about capping the prices. They are not going to do anything! It took the outrage of many Members of Congress, and almost a year later when a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill to put on price caps that in April of 2001 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finally responded and said: Oh, yes, these prices are outrageous, and we should do something about them. Mind you, all of us were saying during that time period that these contracts have been manipulated. They have been manipulated, and it is not fair. Our ratepayers should not have to pay these exorbitant prices. At that time, people were saying: This is just about supply, and if you guys built more supply, you would not have a problem. We have come to find out that it is not all about supply. It is about those manipulated contracts. What happened is we finally heard from the source itself: Enron declaring bankruptcy, an investigation of potential energy market manipulations, and then finally, in March of 2003, FERC issuing this report saying the prices have been manipulated. We had to drag that Federal entity kicking and screaming into the realization that, one, the prices were too high; two, that consumers in the West absolutely needed relief; and three, that these prices have been manipulated. Now we are trying to drag them into the realization that manipulated contracts that cost ratepayers 54-, 77-, 80-percent increases over the next 5 or 6 years are hardly just and reasonable or hardly in the public's interest. The underlying Domenici amendment says: Go ahead and trust these FERC people; they are doing a good job; and let's take away any of those basic tools they have to regulate this industry. I am surprised that some of my colleagues have not said: Let's just do away with FERC and deal with the Power Act. We would be better going to court and having the courts decide in our favor than having a regulatory entity that fails to do its job. But I know this: tonight and tomorrow we should not be talking about repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. We should not be doing that. PUHCA really does hold companies accountable for their business service to retail customers. It gives the SEC the authority to review these mergers and put a prohibition on acquisitions if they do not think there is evidence that we are going to have efficient rates. It makes sure they review the complex corporate structures. It makes sure that these companies do not exploit the consumer. It really did give the SEC the ability to regulate pyramid schemes that were based on fictitious or unsound value assets that had no relationship to fair sums of what was being invested and how much the company was worth. It is amazing, that was a 1935 act. I guess history really does repeat itself because these are the same abuses we have seen in the Enron situation. Remember the maze of affiliates and offshore partnerships that were part of the Enron scheme? Remember Enron's diversification into businesses as far afield as trading of weather derivatives and water supply? Remember how Enron inflated their stock price and then it collapsed? It created such a gaping hole for individuals that they ended up losing their entire investment for retirement because of the collapse. I can tell you this: We do not want to repeal PUHCA. What we want to do is have some further securities put in place. Some of those securities need to respond to these various schemes that have been perpetrated on the American consumer. If we could see some of those schemes, I think the American public would be shocked to know that someone actually spent their time thinking up schemes in which the market could be manipulated. I even have an article that Enron's Ken Lay admitted that he had gone to the then-current FERC Commissioner and said: If you continue to help us on this scheme, then we will continue to support you for the renomination of FERC. I guess Mr. Hebert was not quite so supportive because he was not renominated to that post. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record. The being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: [From the New York Times, May 25, 2001] Power Trader Tied to Bush Finds Washington All Ears (By Lowell Bergman and Jeff Gerth) Curtis Hebert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator, said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he had an unsettling telephone conversion with Kenneth L. Lay, the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the Enron Corporation. Mr. Hebert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said that Mr. Lay, a close friend of President Bush's, offered him a deal: If he changed his views on electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him in his new job. Mr. Hebert (pronounced A-bear) recalled that Mr. Lay prodded him to back a national push for retail competition in the energy business and a faster pace in opening up access to the electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron. Mr. Hebert said he refused the offer. ``I was offended,'' he recalled, though he said he knew of Mr. Lay's influence in Washington and thought the refusal could put his job in jeopardy. Asked about the conversation, Mr. Lay praised Mr. Hebert, but recalled it differently. ``I remember him requesting'' Enron's support at the White House, he said of Mr. Hebert. Mr. Lay said he had ``very possibly'' discussed issues relating to the commission's authority over access to the grid. As to Mr. Hebert's job, Mr. Lay said he told the chairman that ``the final decision on this was going to be the president's, certainly not ours.'' Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in Washington, especially at the commission, the agency authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business. Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to Republican causes last year than Enron. And it appears that Mr. Hebert may soon be replaced as the commission's chairman, according to Vice President Dick Cheney, the Bush administration's point man on energy policy. Mr. Lay has weighed in on candidates for other commission posts, supplying President Bush's chief personnel adviser with a list of preferred candidates. One Florida utility regulator who hoped for but did not receive an appointment as a commissioner said he had been ``interviewed'' by Mr. Lay. Mr. Lay also had access to the team writing the White House's energy report, which embraces several initiatives and issues dear to Enron. The report's recommendations include finding ways to give the federal government more power over electricity transmission networks, a longtime goal of the company that was spelled out in a memorandum Mr. Lay discussed during a 30-minute meeting earlier this spring with Mr. Cheney. Mr. Cheney's report includes much of what Mr. Lay advocated during their meeting, documents show. Both men deny discussing commission personnel issues during their talk. But Mr. Lay had an unusual opportunity to make his case about candidates in writing and in person to Mr. Bush's personnel adviser, Clay Johnson. And when Mr. Bush picked nominees to fill two vacant Republican slots on the five-member commission, they both had the backing of Enron, as well as other companies. Mr. Lay is not shy about voicing his opinion or flexing his political muscle. He has transformed the Houston-based Enron from a sleepy natural-gas company into a $100 billion energy giant with global reach, trading electricity in all corners of the world and owning a multibillion-dollar power project in India. He has also led the push to deregulate the nation's electricity markets. Senior Bush administration officials said they welcomed Mr. Lay's input but did not always embrace it: President Bush backed away from curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, an effort supported by Enron, which had looked to trade emission rights as part of its energy business. ``We'll make decisions based on what we think makes sound public policy,'' Mr. Cheney said in an interview, not what ``Enron thinks.'' The Bush-Lay bond traces back to Mr. Bush's father and involves a personal and philosophical affinity. Moreover, Enron and its executives gave $2.4 million to federal candidates in the last election, more than any other energy company. While some of that went to Democrats, 72 percent went to Republicans, according to an analysis of election records by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit group. ``He's for a lot of things we're for,'' said Mr. Johnson. But when it came to deciding on nominees for the commission, Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Lay's views were not that crucial. The two most important advisers, he said, were Andrew Lundquist, the director of Mr. Cheney's energy task force, and Pat Wood 3rd, the head of the Texas public utility commission. As governor, Mr. Bush named Mr. Wood to the utility commission. This year, when the White House filled the two Republican slots on the federal agency, Mr. Wood was the first choice, Mr. Johnson said. Consumer advocates and business executives praise Mr. Wood. But Mr. Lay also had a role in promoting him. Shortly after Mr. Bush was elected governor in 1994, Mr. Lay sent him a letter endorsing Mr. Wood as the ``best qualified'' person for the Texas commission. In all, there are five seats on the commission, two held by Republicans, two by Democrats and one held by a chairman who serves at the pleasure of the president. Mr. Hebert, who became a commissioner in 1997, was named chairman by Mr. Bush in January. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's mandate to ensure fair prices in wholesale electricity and natural gas markets makes it crucial to sellers like Enron as well as consumers. The movement toward deregulation sometimes leaves the commission caught in a tug of war: power marketers like Enron are trying to break into markets and grids controlled by old- line utilities, which operate under state regulation. The commission's chairman has considerable latitude in setting its agenda. As part of its oversight of the wholesale electricity markets, the commission ordered several companies to refund what it considered excessively high prices this year in California. One lesser offender named in the commission's public filings--$3.2 million, of a total of $125 million--was an Enron subsidiary in Oregon. Enron owns few generating assets, but buys and sells electricity in the market. Many of those transactions resemble the complicated risk-shifting techniques used by Wall Street for financial instruments. Mr. Hebert, after he became chairman, initiated an examination into the effects those techniques have on the electricity markets. ``One of our problems is that we do not have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage activities of a company like Enron,'' he said, adding, ``we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results soon.'' William L. Massey, one of the agency's two democratic commissioners, said he supported the inquiry but had not been aware of it--an indication of the chairman's ability to set the commission's agenda. Finally, the commission is trying to speed the pace of electricity deregulation by opening up the nation's transmission grid, much of which is owned by privately owned utilities that enjoy retail monopolies. Some Enron officials say the commission has been moving too slowly to open the grid. They attribute some of the problem to utilities. But they also fault Mr. Hebert. ``Hebert still has undeserved confidence in some of the vertically integrated companies coming to the table and dealing openly'' with transmission access issues, said Richard S. Shapiro, an Enron senior vice president. The utilities, however, maintain that they provide cheap and reliable service for their customers. Washington lobbyists for one Southern utility said that Enron was really interested in focusing on the utility's big-business clients, which under state regulation pay higher rates than residential customers. Since 1996, about half the states have moved to open their retail markets to competition, and the commission has begun to make it easier for outsiders to use the nation's transmission grid. But the promise of cheaper rates has been largely unfulfilled. So the push for more deregulation, in which Enron has been a leader, has slowed, especially when California's flawed program led to skyrocketing rates and chaotic markets. Mr. Hebert is a free-market conservative who favors deregulation but also recognizes the importance of state's rights. A former Mississippi regulator, he is a protege of Trent Lott, the Senate Republican leader from Mississippi. Mr. Hebert said Mr. Lott was instrumental in his nomination to the commission in 1997 by President Clinton. President Bush elevated Mr. Hebert to chairman on Inauguration Day, a move Mr. Lay said he told the White House he supported. Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, said that Mr. Lott and Mr. Hebert had both been told that Mr. Hebert could remain chairman at least until the administration's nominees--Mr. Wood and Nora Brownell, a Pennsylvania utility regulator--are confirmed by the full Senate. The Senate energy committee voted earlier this week to approve the two nominees, after a hearing last week indicated strong support. It is widely expected that President Bush will name Mr. Wood to replace Mr. Hebert as chairman after the Senate acts. In an interview for a forthcoming episode of ``Frontline,'' the PBS series, Mr. Cheney suggested as much. ``Pat Wood's got to be the new chairman of the F.E.R.C., and he'll have to address'' various problems in the electricity markets, he said. Mr. Hebert said that no one had told him he was being replaced. If someone else is named chairman, Mr. Hebert can remain a commissioner until the end of his term, which expires in 2004. It was a few weeks after President Bush made him chairman Mr. Hebert said he spoke by telephone with Mr. Lay. Mr. Lay told him that ``he and Enron would like to support me as chairman, but we would have to agree on principles'' involving the commission's role in expanding electricity competition, Mr. Hebert said of the conversation. A senior commission official who was in Hebert's office during the conversation said Mr. Hebert rebuffed Mr. Lay's offer of a quid pro quo. The official said that he heard Mr. Hebert's side of the conversation and then, after the call ended, learned the rest from him. Mr. Hebert said that he, too, backed competition but did not think the commission had the legal authority to tell states what to do in this area. Concerning the issue of opening transmission access through the creation of regional networks, Mr. Hebert supports a voluntary process while Enron seeks a faster and more compulsory system. Mr. Lay said that while he might have discussed issues relating to the commission's authority concerning access to the grid, ``there was never any intent'' to link that or any other issue to Mr. Hebert's job status. The commission is a quasijudicial agency, so decision- makers like Mr. Hebert must avoid private discussions about specific matters pending before the commission. Mr. Hebert and Mr. Lay both said that line was not crossed, but Mr. Hebert said he had never had such a blunt talk with an energy-industry executive. Mr. Lay added that his few recent conversations with Mr. Hebert were nothing special. ``We had a lot of access during the Clinton administration,'' he said. And he said that while making political contributions ``probably helps'' to gain access to an official, he made them ``because I'm supporting candidates I strongly believe in.'' Last June, Enron executives were asked to make voluntary donations to the company's political action committee. The solicitation letter noted that the company faced a range of governmental issues, including electricity deregulation. This year, some people who sought but did not get nominations to the commission said that Mr. Lay and Enron had had a role in the process. One was Joe Garcia, a former Florida utilities regulator and prominent Cuban-American activist. He said he had been ``interviewed'' by a few Enron officials, including Mr. Lay, who he said had not been as ``forceful or insistent'' as the other Enron officials. But in their conversation, Mr. Garcia said, Mr. Lay made clear that he would be visiting the White House, adding that ``everyone knew of his relationship and his importance.'' Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, could not cite another company besides Enron that sent him a list of preferred candidates for the commission, but he remembered hearing the views of Tom Kuhn, who heads the utility industry trade group, the Edison Electric Institute. Mr. Kuhn was a classmate of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bush at Yale. As for his conversation with Mr. Garcia, Mr. Lay said he was comfortable with his candidacy but ``I'm not sure what I told him about my friends at the White House.'' This article is part of a joint reporting project with the PBS series ``Frontline,'' which will broadcast a documentary about California's energy crisis on June 5.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I object.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs. While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder. A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband. Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents. In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom. In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia. Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women. My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation. The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence. The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved. Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language. Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national. Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship. Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous. Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history. Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today. Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women. The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse. Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home. Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men. IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation. It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done. My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms. My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs. While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder. A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband. Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents. In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom. In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia. Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women. My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation. The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence. The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved. Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language. Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national. Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship. Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous. Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history. Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today. Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women. The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse. Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home. Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men. IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation. It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done. My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms. My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague Senator Murray, as well as the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee Senator Inouye, that provides an equitable settlement to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. This bill addresses the decision of the Federal Government to take lands belonging to the tribe in order to construct the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. For more than half a century, the Grand Coulee Project has made an extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the United States, it is a key component of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington, and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems serving the entire western United States. However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the Columbia and its Spokane river tributary flooded tribal communities, schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode reservation lands today. The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray, and I are introducing today is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians' with compensation that is directly proportional to the settlement afforded the Colville Tribes. Specifically, the Spokane Tribe would receive 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes pursuant to the 1994 legislation. This percentage is based on the proportion of tribal lands impacted after the Federal Government built the Grand Coulee Project. The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect the integrity of all tribal lands within its borders. When Federal actions physically or economically impact harm, our Nation has a legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. Unfortunately, despite countless efforts, half a century has passed without justice to the Spokane people. The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet is fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane tribe's resources to its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray, and I believe that the legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased to see similar bipartisan legislation was introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and my Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no obligation, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague Senator Murray, as well as the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee Senator Inouye, that provides an equitable settlement to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. This bill addresses the decision of the Federal Government to take lands belonging to the tribe in order to construct the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River. For more than half a century, the Grand Coulee Project has made an extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the United States, it is a key component of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington, and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems serving the entire western United States. However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the Columbia and its Spokane river tributary flooded tribal communities, schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode reservation lands today. The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray, and I are introducing today is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians' with compensation that is directly proportional to the settlement afforded the Colville Tribes. Specifically, the Spokane Tribe would receive 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes pursuant to the 1994 legislation. This percentage is based on the proportion of tribal lands impacted after the Federal Government built the Grand Coulee Project. The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect the integrity of all tribal lands within its borders. When Federal actions physically or economically impact harm, our Nation has a legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. Unfortunately, despite countless efforts, half a century has passed without justice to the Spokane people. The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet is fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane tribe's resources to its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray, and I believe that the legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased to see similar bipartisan legislation was introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives. I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and my Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no obligation, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate will be acting today to confirm Lonny Suko as a District Court Judge for Eastern Washington. Lonny Suko is extremely well qualified. He has been a full-time Federal magistrate judge in Yakima, WA, since 1995. And before that he was a part-time magistrate judge from 1971 until 1991. With 28 years of experience on the Federal bench, elevating him to be a Federal district court judge is a natural step. Lonny Suko's nomination is the result of the hard work of an eastern Washington-based judicial selection committee. The selection committee process was negotiated between the White House, Senator Murray, and myself. Six qualified members of the legal community in Eastern Washington selected by our local Members of Congress and by Senator Murray and myself put in long hours interviewing and selecting three qualified candidates to send to the President. The White House agreed with my judgment that Lonny Suko was the most qualified candidate for this position. Prior to his full-time work as a U.S. magistrate judge, Lonny Suko was also a partner in the firm of Lyon, Weigand & Suko, where his career in private practice involved extensive representation of plaintiffs and defendants in civil litigation as well as extensive mediation experience. Though he has lived in Yakima for the past 30 years, Mr. Suko has connections throughout eastern Washington. He is originally from Spokane, graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Washington State University in Pullman, and started his legal career as a clerk to Judge Charles L. Powell, who was then the Chief Judge of the Eastern District of Washington in Spokane. We wish Judge Suko well in his new position and have confidence that he will be an excellent addition to our distinguished Federal bench.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 942 be the pending business.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes I send to the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, it was reported this week that U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan plans to join a pair of lawsuits filed by three former Medco Health employees. The employees--two pharmacists and a doctor--allege that Medco provided misleading information to the Government related to a contract to provide drug coverage for Federal employees. The lawsuits accuse Medco of switching patients to more expensive drugs and fabricating records to make it look as if the prescription changes were made by doctors and not by Medco. These are serious allegations resulting from an investigation that began in 1999. This is the first such action taken by a U.S. attorney against a PBM and is a strong signal that all is not right with this industry. U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan told the Newark Star Ledger: The kind of conduct alleged in the complaints threatens not only the integrity of the system as a whole, but also the well being of the very patients it is designed to benefit. These allegations suggest that, somewhere along the line, the focus became the profit instead of the patient. The possibility of profitability trumping patient care has promoted a number of consumer groups to favor the accountability system outlined in my amendment. Consumers Union, Public Citizen, Families USA, AFSCME, the National Community Pharmacy Association and the Washington State Pharmacy Association all support my amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, these groups and others have been trying to call attention to problematic PBM practices. These groups rightly point out that strong consumer protections are needed in any Medicare drug benefit. The American Association of State, County and Municipal Employees agrees that these protections provide ``a critical means of controlling costs.'' A national coalition of workers representing more than 20 states also are supportive of efforts to monitor PBMs. Many in this coalition currently use PBMs to provide benefits and many of them are wondering why drug costs continue to rise. There is a balance to be had here, and the Cantwell-Lincoln amendment makes sure the scale is not tipped too far one way. It is a good amendment that will lower prescription drug prices, provide much needed consumer protections and ensure strong government oversight. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to offer the Cantwell- Lincoln Prescription drug transparency amendment to S. 1, the medicare prescription drug bill. I thank my cosponsor, Senator Lincoln, for working with me on this important amendment that will help protect consumers against high prescription drug prices. This amendment does three things. First, it requires any PBM contracting with Medicare to disclose to the Department of Justice how much of the rebates and discounts negotiated for Medicare are being passed back. Second, the disclosure of these financial arrangements to the Department of Justice provides an incentive for PBMs to return as much of that savings as possible to Medicare, which will in turn, help reduce the high cost of prescription drugs. Finally, it prohibits a pharmaceutical company from owning a pharmacy benefit manager, an inherent conflict of interest. By requiring transparency, the Cantwell-Lincoln amendment works to prevent collusion on pricing and helps ensure seniors are not paying unnecessarily high prices for their medications. PBMs have been the target of numerous lawsuits filed in recent years by health plans, employers and governments. The allegations in these lawsuits are always the same: overinflated drug prices, price collusion between PBMs and manufacturers, failure of PBMs to share discounts and rebates, and switching patients to more expensive drugs without the consent of the patient or the doctor. The PBMs have denied wrongdoing and have settled in many cases. Last year, Merck agreed to pay $42.5 million to settle lawsuits over allegations that Medco improperly promoted higher priced Merck drugs when less expensive options from other pharmaceutical companies were available. In 1998, Merck signed a settlement agreement with the Federal Trade Commission stating that, ``Medco has given favorable treatment to Merck drugs.'' This admission is proof that pharmaceutical companies and PBMs have engaged in collusion on drug pricing in the past, extracting excessive profits from people who rely on these drug services. The Cantwell- Lincoln amendment is needed to help prevent price gouging in the future. Other governments have struggled to keep a close watch on PBM practices. In 2000, one of the big four PBMs, Advance PCS, was hired by the state of Arkansas to provide coverage for the state's 135,000 employees. A recent audit found that the PBM was over charging the state for numerous drugs. During one 4-month period, the PBM overcharged the state $479,000 on generic drugs alone. PBM executives say that my amendment makes turning a profit impossible. It is true that PBMs are not charities but private companies with a duty to their shareholders to earn a profit. Let's not forget, however, that these are also private companies charged with providing a Government-funded benefit in the best interests of 40 million senior citizens. These private companies also are duty bound to get the most for the Government's $400 billion investment. Traveling in my home State of Washington, I hear regularly from senior citizens about the high cost of prescription drugs. While seniors in my State, like elsewhere in the country, want a Medicare prescription drug benefit, they also desperately want some relief from high prescription drug prices. They say, ``Stop the price gouging. Do something to make sure that prescription drugs are reasonably affordable for everyone.'' PBMs have come to dominate the prescription drug benefit market. Nearly 210 million Americans are served by one of the four largest PBMs. According to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services, national prescription drug spending increased by 15.7 percent in 2001. Despite promises from pharmacy benefit managers to lower costs, prescription drugs continue to be the fastest growing sector of health care spending in this country. Soaring in tandem with prescription drugs prices are PBM profits. St. Louis-based Express Scripts--one of the four largest PBMs--provides coverage to 40 million people. The company reported that its net income grew 63 percent last year to $202.8 million. Another one of the big four, Advance PCS, which covers 75 million people, was ranked by Fortune Magazine as the ninth fastest growing company in the nation based on its profits over the past 5 years. Unfortunately, it has been near impossible to find out whether PBMs are fairly sharing rebates and other savings with patients or simply using it to boost the bottom line. Even the General Accounting Office has been unable to find out how rebates are being divided between PBMs and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. A GAO requested by Senator Dorgan last year failed to discover if the PBMs were passing along the savings because none of the PBMs financial documents were available for review. Several private companies and employee groups that contract with PBMs have resorted to lawsuits to get access to this information. The Cantwell-Lincoln amendment requires the PBM to disclose to the Department of Justice the financial arrangements that dictate what percentage of rebates and other savings are being passed back to the client. This disclosure creates a major incentive for PBMs to return as much as possible of the rebates and spread back to the Medicare program. This incentive also will help reduce prescription drug prices. The PBMs have argued that reporting this financial information would kill their ability to continue to negotiate low drug prices. I am a businesswoman, and I understand the need to keep financial agreements confidential. That is why my amendment mandates the information be handed over to the Department of Justice, where it remains confidential. Department of Justice oversight also allows for regular review of these financial arrangements to weed out any potential collusion on pricing. This added protection also will help lower drug costs for seniors. The Cantwell-Lincoln amendment also prohibits PBMs from being owned by pharmaceutical manufacturers. This cross-ownership is problematic because it could allow for pharmaceutical companies to collude with PBMs to favor the manufacturers more expensive drugs over less expensive alternatives. A report on PBMs by the National Health Policy Forum points out the concerns raised by close relationships between PBMs and drug manufacturers. Close ties between the two could lead to a lack of drug choice for consumers, with one manufacturer's drugs getting preferential treatment by the PBM. Actions taken this week by the U.S. attorney in Philadelphia reinforce the need for greater PBM oversight as outlined in the Cantwell-Lincoln amendment. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that articles from the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a topic that I believe is critical to our Nation's economic growth and future competitiveness--the training of our workforce. We are living in tough economic times. The economy of the State of Washington and the Nation at large are suffering through a recession where jobs are scarce and workers are scrambling to pay the bills. The most recent employment data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have offered little comfort in Washington where the unemployment rate is 7.3 percent. Washington, along with the other Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continues to have among the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Just a month ago, the Senate moved quickly to extend the temporary extension of unemployment compensation program, so that approximately four million workers across this country will not lose their Federal extended unemployment benefits. I am proud that the Senate acted quickly to extend this important program. This means that over 100,000 unemployed workers in Washington State will receive 26 weeks of Federal extended benefits. I am disappointed, however, that we were not able to pass coverage for the estimated 1.1 million unemployed workers who have entirely exhausted their State and Federal benefits. Therefore, I am fighting to pass a bill that would extend coverage to the long-term unemployed, so that help is available to the hardest hit workers in this weak economy. Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment insurance extension. We must continue to pursue long-term strategies for a sustained economic recovery. The fundamental strength of our economy lies in the working men and women of this Nation whose innovation and hard work propelled the massive economic expansion of the past decade. The competitive edge that will keep our workers ahead in this changing global economy is their skills. Our economy is global, linked by international markets and communications networks. The sustained success of U.S. companies depends on adaptability and innovation, which means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually update job skills. Even in this time of high unemployment, businesses throughout the country cannot find workers with the skills they need. According to a study completed by Heldrich Work Trends Survey, American employers are finding it difficult to hire qualified workers. Nearly half, 46 percent, of American businesses say they have had trouble finding workers with the necessary skills. At the same time, over three million workers are laid off each year, but well under 500,000 receive any sort of training to learn the skills demanded by those businesses that face worker shortages. Job training is an answer to meeting those skill demands and bridging the skills gaps that persist. However, it will not occur widely without a strong financial commitment from the Federal Government to ensure access to job training programs, and ongoing efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already invest. Investment in job training must be our first priority not our last-- the decisions we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many times over in the form of stronger local economies, healthier communities, and improved quality of life. But the reality is that we are delivering a trickle of funding while faced with a tidal wave of need. I have traveled across my state, from Olympia to Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cities to Spokane and received a great deal of feedback from Washingtonians who are seeking training, are providing it, or are serving as employers who need to hire skilled workers. And I heard similar concerns repeated in each of these areas: first, as our economy continues to evolve, the demand for new skills has grown; second, the enormous increase in demand for skills training by individual workers who are upgrading skills or changing jobs is a trend that appears to be widespread throughout the Nation; but third, far too many of those workers seeking access to training cannot get the training they need due to limited space at training institutions and the limited tuition assistance. Last year, my office released a study of this apparent shortfall in capacity of training systems in my State, and the results of that study were staggering to me. There are over 110,000 dislocated workers in my state, the majority of whom want to upgrade their skills but cannot do so because of budgetary limitations that prevent institutions from offering enough courses, and the limited numbers of available training vouchers. To make things worse, this year, the State of Washington received approximately 40 percent less in Workforce Investment Act, WIA, formula funding compared to last year. This drastic cut in WIA funding means that services will be cut back at a time when the demand is at an all time high. It is imperative that during this time of State deficits, States receive additional help from the Federal Government for important services such as education and job training. As my colleagues know, the Workforce Investment Act is up for reauthorization this year. The WIA system is clearly the centerpiece of the Federal job training programs. It provides a one-stop delivery system designed to meet a broad range of worker needs, and it emerged from years of bipartisan work by Congress to consolidate over 33 Federal programs into one system for delivering employment and training services. Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon the existing workforce structure to expand opportunities for training and improve its effectiveness. The first piece of legislation would change the Pell Grant program to make certain that student financial aid is available to recently laid off workers. Under current law, the standard practice in the determination of Pell Grant eligibility for student aid is to base grant awards upon the applicant's income during the previous year. The use of tax forms for this purpose, in many cases, is the most appropriate and easiest administrative method of obtaining a clear and official statement of financial need. But, as a result, many recently laid-off workers are not eligible for critical financial assistance at a time when the workers' families are experiencing a dramatic decrease in income. My legislation would explicitly provide the authority for educational institutions, after taking sufficient precautions to prevent fraud, to consider current-year income levels for applicants seeking training through Pell Grant-eligible programs. It does this in a very narrow way, by only allowing institutions in States with high unemployment rates to consider current year financial circumstances rather than previous year income. The second bill addresses issues of distance-learning and delivery of training to hard to reach areas in a comprehensive manner. While many distance-learning technologies have been developed in recent years, those technologies have not necessarily reached many of those who are most in need of training. Many workers in need of training may not be aware of online distance learning opportunities and may not be able to take advantage of them even if they do know about them. I believe, it is not enough to create a distance learning curriculum and passively provide it through an educational institution website. Rather, comprehensive solutions need to be developed that integrate curriculum innovations, technological access, and the promotion and linkage of workers in need of training with such opportunities, especially to help workers in rural areas. That's why my bill encourages the local workforce development boards to plan a comprehensive approach to improve access to and delivery of employment training services by using technology and online resources to connect workers with the information and tools they need to upgrade their skills. The third bill that I am introducing today is designed to help local workforce development boards better understand regional labor market dynamics and improve system performance by identifying emerging sectors and industries with chronic worker shortages. My legislation encourages local workforce development boards to target employment and training resources so that workers can get training in occupations where employers need workers. My legislation provides new resources to the state level so that states can direct funding down to the local workforce development boards to form partnerships with employers, unions, service providers and other key players in order to develop a strategic plan for addressing regional industry and workforce needs. I want to make clear that this legislation is not intended to reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral approaches within existing workforce development systems. In fact, Washington State is a leader in sector approaches: in 2000, the Washington State Legislature enacted legislation to support industry skills panels known as the ``Skills Initiative.'' The Skills Initiative provides grants to local workforce development councils to engage business and industry in strategies to close the skill gaps in my State. My legislation emphasizes this work by providing funding to support these partnerships. This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal job training systems, and it is critical, now more than ever, that Congress increase funding for the job training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. By providing the necessary resources, we send a strong message to the American public that our government must invest in our greatest resource--the American worker. Each of these bills is an important component of that broader strategy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we begin to look at the reauthorization of WIA and the Higher Education Act this year and next. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss a topic that I believe is critical to our Nation's economic growth and future competitiveness--the training of our workforce. We are living in tough economic times. The economy of the State of Washington and the Nation at large are suffering through a recession where jobs are scarce and workers are scrambling to pay the bills. The most recent employment data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have offered little comfort in Washington where the unemployment rate is 7.3 percent. Washington, along with the other Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continues to have among the highest unemployment rates in the nation. Just a month ago, the Senate moved quickly to extend the temporary extension of unemployment compensation program, so that approximately four million workers across this country will not lose their Federal extended unemployment benefits. I am proud that the Senate acted quickly to extend this important program. This means that over 100,000 unemployed workers in Washington State will receive 26 weeks of Federal extended benefits. I am disappointed, however, that we were not able to pass coverage for the estimated 1.1 million unemployed workers who have entirely exhausted their State and Federal benefits. Therefore, I am fighting to pass a bill that would extend coverage to the long-term unemployed, so that help is available to the hardest hit workers in this weak economy. Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment insurance extension. We must continue to pursue long-term strategies for a sustained economic recovery. The fundamental strength of our economy lies in the working men and women of this Nation whose innovation and hard work propelled the massive economic expansion of the past decade. The competitive edge that will keep our workers ahead in this changing global economy is their skills. Our economy is global, linked by international markets and communications networks. The sustained success of U.S. companies depends on adaptability and innovation, which means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually update job skills. Even in this time of high unemployment, businesses throughout the country cannot find workers with the skills they need. According to a study completed by Heldrich Work Trends Survey, American employers are finding it difficult to hire qualified workers. Nearly half, 46 percent, of American businesses say they have had trouble finding workers with the necessary skills. At the same time, over three million workers are laid off each year, but well under 500,000 receive any sort of training to learn the skills demanded by those businesses that face worker shortages. Job training is an answer to meeting those skill demands and bridging the skills gaps that persist. However, it will not occur widely without a strong financial commitment from the Federal Government to ensure access to job training programs, and ongoing efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already invest. Investment in job training must be our first priority not our last-- the decisions we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many times over in the form of stronger local economies, healthier communities, and improved quality of life. But the reality is that we are delivering a trickle of funding while faced with a tidal wave of need. I have traveled across my state, from Olympia to Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cities to Spokane and received a great deal of feedback from Washingtonians who are seeking training, are providing it, or are serving as employers who need to hire skilled workers. And I heard similar concerns repeated in each of these areas: first, as our economy continues to evolve, the demand for new skills has grown; second, the enormous increase in demand for skills training by individual workers who are upgrading skills or changing jobs is a trend that appears to be widespread throughout the Nation; but third, far too many of those workers seeking access to training cannot get the training they need due to limited space at training institutions and the limited tuition assistance. Last year, my office released a study of this apparent shortfall in capacity of training systems in my State, and the results of that study were staggering to me. There are over 110,000 dislocated workers in my state, the majority of whom want to upgrade their skills but cannot do so because of budgetary limitations that prevent institutions from offering enough courses, and the limited numbers of available training vouchers. To make things worse, this year, the State of Washington received approximately 40 percent less in Workforce Investment Act, WIA, formula funding compared to last year. This drastic cut in WIA funding means that services will be cut back at a time when the demand is at an all time high. It is imperative that during this time of State deficits, States receive additional help from the Federal Government for important services such as education and job training. As my colleagues know, the Workforce Investment Act is up for reauthorization this year. The WIA system is clearly the centerpiece of the Federal job training programs. It provides a one-stop delivery system designed to meet a broad range of worker needs, and it emerged from years of bipartisan work by Congress to consolidate over 33 Federal programs into one system for delivering employment and training services. Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon the existing workforce structure to expand opportunities for training and improve its effectiveness. The first piece of legislation would change the Pell Grant program to make certain that student financial aid is available to recently laid off workers. Under current law, the standard practice in the determination of Pell Grant eligibility for student aid is to base grant awards upon the applicant's income during the previous year. The use of tax forms for this purpose, in many cases, is the most appropriate and easiest administrative method of obtaining a clear and official statement of financial need. But, as a result, many recently laid-off workers are not eligible for critical financial assistance at a time when the workers' families are experiencing a dramatic decrease in income. My legislation would explicitly provide the authority for educational institutions, after taking sufficient precautions to prevent fraud, to consider current-year income levels for applicants seeking training through Pell Grant-eligible programs. It does this in a very narrow way, by only allowing institutions in States with high unemployment rates to consider current year financial circumstances rather than previous year income. The second bill addresses issues of distance-learning and delivery of training to hard to reach areas in a comprehensive manner. While many distance-learning technologies have been developed in recent years, those technologies have not necessarily reached many of those who are most in need of training. Many workers in need of training may not be aware of online distance learning opportunities and may not be able to take advantage of them even if they do know about them. I believe, it is not enough to create a distance learning curriculum and passively provide it through an educational institution website. Rather, comprehensive solutions need to be developed that integrate curriculum innovations, technological access, and the promotion and linkage of workers in need of training with such opportunities, especially to help workers in rural areas. That's why my bill encourages the local workforce development boards to plan a comprehensive approach to improve access to and delivery of employment training services by using technology and online resources to connect workers with the information and tools they need to upgrade their skills. The third bill that I am introducing today is designed to help local workforce development boards better understand regional labor market dynamics and improve system performance by identifying emerging sectors and industries with chronic worker shortages. My legislation encourages local workforce development boards to target employment and training resources so that workers can get training in occupations where employers need workers. My legislation provides new resources to the state level so that states can direct funding down to the local workforce development boards to form partnerships with employers, unions, service providers and other key players in order to develop a strategic plan for addressing regional industry and workforce needs. I want to make clear that this legislation is not intended to reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral approaches within existing workforce development systems. In fact, Washington State is a leader in sector approaches: in 2000, the Washington State Legislature enacted legislation to support industry skills panels known as the ``Skills Initiative.'' The Skills Initiative provides grants to local workforce development councils to engage business and industry in strategies to close the skill gaps in my State. My legislation emphasizes this work by providing funding to support these partnerships. This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal job training systems, and it is critical, now more than ever, that Congress increase funding for the job training programs under the Workforce Investment Act. By providing the necessary resources, we send a strong message to the American public that our government must invest in our greatest resource--the American worker. Each of these bills is an important component of that broader strategy, and I look forward to working with my colleagues as we begin to look at the reauthorization of WIA and the Higher Education Act this year and next. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of each bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act. I believe this legislation will dramatically improve the way in which prescription drug benefits are provided to our Nation's 40 million senior citizens through the Medicare program. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act is intended to provide some assurances that the billions of dollars being spent on this new prescription drug benefit for Medicare is going as far as possible. The Act is focused primarily on the practices of pharmacy benefit managers, the private companies that would most likely administer the new prescription drug benefit called for under the Prescription Drug Benefits Bill. PBMs have come to dominate the prescription drug benefit market and subsequently, have been the target of criticism by the employers and health plans that contract with them. The source of the controversy has been the cost cutting practices of PBMs, which have allowed them to make prescription drug coverage more affordable. However, the fact that drug prices continue to rise in the face of these cost-cutting efforts, has led some to question PBM practices in the private sector. As we move forward in providing prescription drug coverage within a government-operated program as large as Medicare it is critical that there be adequate safeguards in place. My bill would provide greater scrutiny and auditing of PBMs contracting with the government and also provide some consumer protections for all Americans who purchase prescription drugs. The market share of prescription drug benefits managed by PBMs has grown enormously in recent years. Currently, 90 percent of Americans with prescription drug coverage have their benefits administered by a PMB. Of that 90 percent, nearly 70 percent of those people are served by one of the four major PBM companies. PBMs provide benefits to nearly 200 million Americans, including 65 percent of the Nation's senior population. PBMs have become as powerful in the delivery of prescription drug services as the manufacturers which produce medications. As PBMs have come to dominate the market, they are increasingly drawing the attention of State lawmakers struggling with skyrocketing prescription drug costs for state workers and large programs like Medicaid. As States focus on reducing pharmaceutical costs, suspicions are growing among state lawmakers and health department officials that the ``behind-closed-doors'' practices of PBMs are responsible for some of the escalating costs of prescription drugs. In 2002, Georgia become the first State to regulate PBMs by requiring they be licensed as pharmacies. This year, 19 States have introduced legislation to regulate or license PBMs. At issue are the rebates, discounts and other savings that PBMs negotiate with drug manufacturers in exchange for giving their medications ``preferred'' status on the PBMs list of available drugs. Those contracts are a primary source of revenue for the PBMs and for the drug manufacturers who see use of their products increase as the PBM steers its massive consumer base toward the preferred drug. However, because PBMs are so secretive about their arrangements with manufacturers, it is difficult for PBM clients to know if a significant portion of the rebates are being passed back to them as the PBM promises. PBMs also negotiate lower prices with pharmacies but fail to share those savings with consumers, particularly on generic drugs. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that for one drug fluoxetine, a generic of Prozac, PBMs were buying the drug from the pharmacy for about 30 cents a pill. However, most of the PBMs clients were paying $1.06 a pill based on the average markup formula. The PBM was pocketing the difference, which was 76 cents per pill. Multiply that by the number of fluoxetine pills dispensed by the PBMs and it is clear that these private companies are getting rich while consumers continue to pay unnecessarily high drug prices. This may be in the best interests of the PBMs shareholders, but it is a disservice to its customers, which turn to PBMs in an attempt to save money and lower drug costs. Efforts to better understand the PBM industry have reinforced this attitude of secrecy and backroom deals. Last year, Senator Dorgan requested a General Accounting Office study of whether PBMs were sharing the savings achieved through rebates and discounts with the members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Unfortunately, the study provided us with little understanding of how the PBM industry operates because GAO was denied access to the financial documents of the PBM companies. GAO had no way of fulfilling its obligation of reporting to Congress because the PBMs refused to disclose any information about rebates, discounts and other savings generated by FEHBP. Yet, these same companies want the federal government to hand them billions of dollars for a new Medicare drug benefit without providing any accounting of how that money was spent. Allowing the PBMs to operate a government program in such secrecy is outrageous and would set a terrible policy precedent. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act would improve this system with a five-part approach. First, the Act would eliminate potential conflicts of interest by prohibiting cross ownership of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and PBMs. Second, it would contain costs by requiring that any PBM contracting with Medicare provide any cost savings negotiated with a pharmacy back to the PBM client, be that client an employer, a health plan or the government. Third, it would require all pharmacies to disclose the retail cost of a prescription drug upon request by a consumer. Several States, including Washington State, Montana, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island, along with the Virgin Islands, currently require pharmacies to make retail prices available to consumers. This provision is desperately needed across the country. A 2002 survey conducted by the Washington State Attorney General's Office found that retail prices on prescriptions could vary as much as $25 within a city and within a pharmacy chain. All consumers should be able to comparison shop for the best price amongst pharmacies in their area but they cannot do that if they do not know the retail price of various drugs. Fourth, the amendment would require PBMs on an annual basis to make public the percent of rebate received from the manufacturer that is passed back to the client, such as an employer, health plan or the government. The amendment does not require full public disclosure of the PBMs' negotiations with manufacturers because I realize that such a requirement could damage their ability to get good deals from the manufacturer. This disclosure does not have to take an all or nothing approach. The Act allows the PBM to keep private the specifics of their contracts, but at the same time provides senior citizens some assurance that they are benefiting from the savings achieved in those contracts. Finally, my bill would strengthen the audit requirements for PBMs administering the Medicare drug benefit to ensure that PBMs are passing those rebates and other savings along to consumers. One of the problems for employers and health plans using PBMs now is that it is difficult for them to confirm that the PBM is meeting its contractual obligations to pass on a portion of its savings. Auditing provisions in my bill include complete disclosure of the amounts and types of rebates. The results of the audit would not become public, to ensure the PBMs ability to continue to negotiate discounted prices. This approach strikes a fair balance between the PBMs rights as private companies and the duty the PBMs have to share any savings generated by the new benefit with Medicare recipients. Together, these provisions will ensure that senior citizens and the government are getting the most out of every dollar spent on a Medicare prescription drug benefit and that other consumers who purchase prescription drugs are armed with information before spending their hard-earned money. Consumers should have some assurance that the private companies providing prescription drug insurance are not running up costs and cutting down coverage in an attempt to boost their own bottom lines. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act provides those assurances and protections.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to offer the Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act. I believe this legislation will dramatically improve the way in which prescription drug benefits are provided to our Nation's 40 million senior citizens through the Medicare program. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act is intended to provide some assurances that the billions of dollars being spent on this new prescription drug benefit for Medicare is going as far as possible. The Act is focused primarily on the practices of pharmacy benefit managers, the private companies that would most likely administer the new prescription drug benefit called for under the Prescription Drug Benefits Bill. PBMs have come to dominate the prescription drug benefit market and subsequently, have been the target of criticism by the employers and health plans that contract with them. The source of the controversy has been the cost cutting practices of PBMs, which have allowed them to make prescription drug coverage more affordable. However, the fact that drug prices continue to rise in the face of these cost-cutting efforts, has led some to question PBM practices in the private sector. As we move forward in providing prescription drug coverage within a government-operated program as large as Medicare it is critical that there be adequate safeguards in place. My bill would provide greater scrutiny and auditing of PBMs contracting with the government and also provide some consumer protections for all Americans who purchase prescription drugs. The market share of prescription drug benefits managed by PBMs has grown enormously in recent years. Currently, 90 percent of Americans with prescription drug coverage have their benefits administered by a PMB. Of that 90 percent, nearly 70 percent of those people are served by one of the four major PBM companies. PBMs provide benefits to nearly 200 million Americans, including 65 percent of the Nation's senior population. PBMs have become as powerful in the delivery of prescription drug services as the manufacturers which produce medications. As PBMs have come to dominate the market, they are increasingly drawing the attention of State lawmakers struggling with skyrocketing prescription drug costs for state workers and large programs like Medicaid. As States focus on reducing pharmaceutical costs, suspicions are growing among state lawmakers and health department officials that the ``behind-closed-doors'' practices of PBMs are responsible for some of the escalating costs of prescription drugs. In 2002, Georgia become the first State to regulate PBMs by requiring they be licensed as pharmacies. This year, 19 States have introduced legislation to regulate or license PBMs. At issue are the rebates, discounts and other savings that PBMs negotiate with drug manufacturers in exchange for giving their medications ``preferred'' status on the PBMs list of available drugs. Those contracts are a primary source of revenue for the PBMs and for the drug manufacturers who see use of their products increase as the PBM steers its massive consumer base toward the preferred drug. However, because PBMs are so secretive about their arrangements with manufacturers, it is difficult for PBM clients to know if a significant portion of the rebates are being passed back to them as the PBM promises. PBMs also negotiate lower prices with pharmacies but fail to share those savings with consumers, particularly on generic drugs. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation found that for one drug fluoxetine, a generic of Prozac, PBMs were buying the drug from the pharmacy for about 30 cents a pill. However, most of the PBMs clients were paying $1.06 a pill based on the average markup formula. The PBM was pocketing the difference, which was 76 cents per pill. Multiply that by the number of fluoxetine pills dispensed by the PBMs and it is clear that these private companies are getting rich while consumers continue to pay unnecessarily high drug prices. This may be in the best interests of the PBMs shareholders, but it is a disservice to its customers, which turn to PBMs in an attempt to save money and lower drug costs. Efforts to better understand the PBM industry have reinforced this attitude of secrecy and backroom deals. Last year, Senator Dorgan requested a General Accounting Office study of whether PBMs were sharing the savings achieved through rebates and discounts with the members of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan. Unfortunately, the study provided us with little understanding of how the PBM industry operates because GAO was denied access to the financial documents of the PBM companies. GAO had no way of fulfilling its obligation of reporting to Congress because the PBMs refused to disclose any information about rebates, discounts and other savings generated by FEHBP. Yet, these same companies want the federal government to hand them billions of dollars for a new Medicare drug benefit without providing any accounting of how that money was spent. Allowing the PBMs to operate a government program in such secrecy is outrageous and would set a terrible policy precedent. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act would improve this system with a five-part approach. First, the Act would eliminate potential conflicts of interest by prohibiting cross ownership of pharmaceutical manufacturing companies and PBMs. Second, it would contain costs by requiring that any PBM contracting with Medicare provide any cost savings negotiated with a pharmacy back to the PBM client, be that client an employer, a health plan or the government. Third, it would require all pharmacies to disclose the retail cost of a prescription drug upon request by a consumer. Several States, including Washington State, Montana, New York, Oregon and Rhode Island, along with the Virgin Islands, currently require pharmacies to make retail prices available to consumers. This provision is desperately needed across the country. A 2002 survey conducted by the Washington State Attorney General's Office found that retail prices on prescriptions could vary as much as $25 within a city and within a pharmacy chain. All consumers should be able to comparison shop for the best price amongst pharmacies in their area but they cannot do that if they do not know the retail price of various drugs. Fourth, the amendment would require PBMs on an annual basis to make public the percent of rebate received from the manufacturer that is passed back to the client, such as an employer, health plan or the government. The amendment does not require full public disclosure of the PBMs' negotiations with manufacturers because I realize that such a requirement could damage their ability to get good deals from the manufacturer. This disclosure does not have to take an all or nothing approach. The Act allows the PBM to keep private the specifics of their contracts, but at the same time provides senior citizens some assurance that they are benefiting from the savings achieved in those contracts. Finally, my bill would strengthen the audit requirements for PBMs administering the Medicare drug benefit to ensure that PBMs are passing those rebates and other savings along to consumers. One of the problems for employers and health plans using PBMs now is that it is difficult for them to confirm that the PBM is meeting its contractual obligations to pass on a portion of its savings. Auditing provisions in my bill include complete disclosure of the amounts and types of rebates. The results of the audit would not become public, to ensure the PBMs ability to continue to negotiate discounted prices. This approach strikes a fair balance between the PBMs rights as private companies and the duty the PBMs have to share any savings generated by the new benefit with Medicare recipients. Together, these provisions will ensure that senior citizens and the government are getting the most out of every dollar spent on a Medicare prescription drug benefit and that other consumers who purchase prescription drugs are armed with information before spending their hard-earned money. Consumers should have some assurance that the private companies providing prescription drug insurance are not running up costs and cutting down coverage in an attempt to boost their own bottom lines. The Prescription Drug Consumer Information Act provides those assurances and protections.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to support the Graham amendment. I thank my colleague from California for speaking so eloquently about how important it is for the entire west coast of the United States. I know Senator Graham is articulating those same concerns in Florida. I am sure we will hear from Members of other parts of the country. I find this debate almost amazing--amazing in the sense that Congress has enacted moratoria on drilling since 1982. In every instance since 1982, Congress has responded and said we don't want to explore for natural gas or oil off of our pristine coasts. So we go over this time and time again. Yes. We are going to go over it again today. People have raised these economic arguments. I can tell you what the people in Washington State think. We have a 7.4-percent unemployment rate. We want jobs. But I guarantee this is not where we think we are going to get jobs. In fact, we want protection from our high energy costs. My ratepayers have had a 50-percent rate increase. Why? Because we were gouged by Enron contracts. To say to the people of the Northwest that somehow your economy and your future are going be taken care of because we are going to let you drill off the coast of Washington is ludicrous. We want economic relief. We want statutory relief from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do their job. We want them to basically say that the fat boys and these Enron schemes have been illegal and we are going to help you get out of your high energy prices. The fact that we are out here talking about this isn't really going to lead to drilling. Then why spend the taxpayers' dollars trying to study something we don't want to do. I don't want to drill off the coast of Washington. I don't want to spend the taxpayers' money assessing that situation. I don't think we ought to spend the taxpayers' money looking in the Great Lakes for oil. I don't know that we want to go and say let us valuate putting a nuclear powerplant in North Dakota because it might be close to the Missouri River and a water source. There are a lot of issues we can explore. The question is, do we want to follow through on those policies? I believe the answer is absolutely no, as to our pristine coastline. That coastline has already been a key part of our economy on the west coast. We have many fishing industries, shellfishing industries, and tourism dollars that all rely on that pristine coastline. The Federal Government has entered into treaties with the tribes on shellfish and harvesting rights. Are we going to abrogate those Federal obligations that we have signed onto? We also, as the Federal Government, implemented the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary which encompasses most of the waters off the Northwest coast. It is a sanctuary for hundreds of species, including marine mammals. These mammals include the majestic orca whale, whose 20 percent population decline over the past decade recently triggered a ``depleted'' listing under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Now are going to say to the country that we think we should look at putting oil rigs and transportation of oil in an area that we, as a country, have already designated as a pristine national monument? If you want to know whether the people of my State are watching, they are watching. Guess what. They have a memory. They do remember. They remember thick carpets of oil, hundreds of dead birds and great shards of oil-blackened timber that followed the 1989 oil spill off of Grays Harbor. That disaster stained over 300 miles of coastline. An oil well blowout could be many times worse. While some argue that simply studying this just gives us information, my response is that we should not spend millions of taxpayer dollars that could be put towards something else. My constituents won't accept drilling rigs off the vibrant coastline of Willapa Bay, Neah Bay, or the mouth of the Columbia River. Rigs are unsightly and the risk of an ecologically disastrous oil spill is just too high. Instead of looking for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, my State is willing to do a variety of things. We are still the home to the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, and we are spending billions of taxpayer dollars to clean up the nuclear waste. We are progressing on that in an aggressive fashion. We have one of the largest wind farms in the West. We are trying to be a leader in new energy technology. We are even willing to look at wave energy technology off the coast of Washington and in other areas where it might be more appropriate. I am a big advocate of moving forward on natural gas in Alaska to make sure we get a natural gas pipeline to give more natural gas resources to the lower 48 States. That is something which I think is critically important. The Pew Ocean Commission has recently highlighted the fragile nature of our oceans and coastal resources and recommended we look at our oceans in a holistic manner. I think that report, which came out less than 10 days ago, basically says that we don't have our act together as it relates to our oceans and the health of our oceans. I find it very frustrating being from a State that has high unemployment and a State that has high energy costs. Those energy costs have been costing us and no one is trying to help give us relief from those contracts. Public documents say there has been market manipulation. Now somebody thinks they are proposing to us some panacea of studying drilling off the coast of Washington and you are going to have a great economy. It is a bunch of bunk. What we need to do is what Congress has done since 1982, enact a moratorium on drilling. Stand up and say it is not appropriate. Follow the Bush administration, follow the Clinton administration, and follow the previous Bush administration. I am not sure where this Bush administration is, but basically say we don't want drilling off of our pristine coastline. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to strongly support the Aviation Investment and Revitalization Vision Act. I want to first applaud the tremendous leadership on this bill from my chairman on the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senator Hollings, the ranking member. This legislation reaffirms our Government's critical commitment to a safe, efficient, and state-of-the-art airline system for the 21st century--a commitment that is crucially important to my home State. The Seattle-Tacoma International Airport is the principal airport for the Northwest region, making it the Nation's 16th largest passenger airport, with over 26.5 million passengers annually on almost 40 different airlines going in and out of the Seattle-Tacoma airport. Washington State is also the home to the ninth largest airline in the country, Alaska Airlines, which employs over 10,000 people and is one of the few airlines in the country actually posting growth rates over the last few years. In addition, Alaska is nationally recognized for its leadership to incorporate technology into its business model. As the proud home of Boeing's commercial aviation division, Washington State leads the Nation in large civil aircraft manufacturing. With Boeing and hundreds of smaller businesses in aerospace and aviation, we have over 75,000 workers designing and manufacturing the present and future of U.S. aircraft industry. Obviously, a solid, well functioning, state-of-the-art national air traffic system and a strong domestic aircraft manufacturing capability are critical to my State and our Nation. I am proud to say that this bipartisan legislation takes tremendous steps towards this goal in several ways. First, this bill increases funding for airport infrastructure investments that will help our Nation's airports make the improvements, upgrades and expansions necessary to meet our Nation's airline demands in the 21st century. The bill also increases the funding that will be used to upgrade the FAA air traffic control system, to ensure that our traffic controllers are given the resources they need to continue getting planes where they need to go--in the safest and most efficient manner. In addition, this bill addresses a critical resource need facing our Nation's airports since 9/11 increased security updates. The legislation not only provides $500 million in funding for security enhancements, but it ensures that this funding is not taken from the airport trust fund money that is already committed to make important structural upgrades and airport improvements. Last, in what I think is one of the most important contributions of this bill, the legislation includes a dramatic expansion in our Nation's commitment to aviation research and safety. Mr. President, a renewed commitment to research and development in the aerospace industry is absolutely necessary--and we need it now. The Final Report of the Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry argued that current Federal aerospace R&D is ``insufficient and unfocused'' and recommended in the Federal Government significantly increase its investment in aerospace research to foster an efficient, secure, and safe aerospace transportation system. We must clearly recognize that if we are not willing to make the commitments to retain leadership in this realm, our allies on the other side of the Atlantic certainly are willing to take our place--in fact, this effort has become European policy. Indeed, the European Commission has declared in its ``STAR-21'' report that it is willing to explore ``all available means'' to ensure the competitiveness of the European aerospace sector--including Airbus. This support to the European aerospace sector comes in the form of substantial research and development, but also in direct product development grants, concessionary financing, and other direct subsidies. While we have chosen, as a matter of Government policy, not to pursue such direct subsidies or provide assistance for product development, we have been able to help the research and development effort through a variety of research programs that both of your agencies have pursued. It is time for the United States to reinforce our Nation's place as a leader in the aerospace sector--an industry is an absolutely crucial component of our domestic industrial base. For this reason, I am very proud that this bill includes provisions originally introduced by Senator Hollings, that would establish an Office of Aerospace and Aviation Liaison in the Department of Transportation that will draw upon staff from FAA, NASA, DHS, DOD, DOC, and other appropriate agencies to coordinate Federal research programs, as well as establish goals and priorities for research. Such an office will be well equipped to meet the challenge of the Aerospace Commission and bring direction and coordination to our Federal support for long-term research and innovation. In addition, this bill authorizes almost $3 billion over the next 3 years for FAA and NASA research priorities. This is a dramatic expansion of the research agenda, almost five times more than previously authorized funding--previous authorization was approximately $600 million over 3 years. As part of these research provisions, I am particularly proud to have worked with the committee to include funding and authority for future work on the durability and maintainability of advanced materials, such as composites. These next generation materials have been called the aluminum of the future. Indeed, given their strength, durability, lightweight and unique properties, composites are currently used in most major defense aircraft. Composites not only make for stronger, safer materials but also lighter and more efficient aircraft. Already, the Boeing Company has increased its use of composites in the production of the 777 and Airbus is also using composites in its planes. Additionally, Boeing has plans for even greater use in the production of the next generation of commercial airplanes. In addition to authorizing funds for general research in advanced materials, this legislation would direct the FAA Administrator to establish a ``Center for Excellence'' that would harness the great engineering research in materials science at path-breaking institutions like the University of Washington, which has taken great strides in pursuing work on how to advance the maintainability and durability of advanced materials and composites in large civilian aircraft. While we know that these materials hold tremendous potential, we need to be absolutely sure that they are safe and that we have the technologies and processes necessary to maintain the materials and ensure their durability. Such a center, which I have drafted in partnership with the University of Washington's Department of Engineering, would address these issues by facilitating close, working collaboration among industry, the FAA's Transportation Division, and academic institutions, to ensure that research matches the practical manufacturing needs. This center will advance efforts to capitalize on the potential of this field. In closing, Mr. President, as a government, we need to step up to the plate to ensure that our aerospace industry remains competitive and capable of leading the world toward the future for aerospace. This bill takes an important step in affirming our Nation's leadership in the areas of safety, research, infrastructure, and security, and I am proud to support it.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Madam President. I am here to support the Feinstein amendment, which I am pleased to cosponsor. It is a very important piece of legislation. I thank my colleague for her hard work on this very important issue. We have all heard about the dysfunctions in our western regional power market and how it has cost our western economy more than $35 billion. Madam President, it was more than a year ago that the Senator from California and I stood on the floor to have this debate with many of my colleagues. During the Omnibus Appropriations bill in 2000, Congress granted an exemption from regulatory scrutiny for businesses such as EnronOnline and electronic trading platforms. Unsurprisingly, Enron was chief among its boosters in lobbying for this language. Even though Congress listened to Enron and not the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, which opposed this exemption. Now we have history. What has happened? We know that the Enron loophole has caused quite a bit of a problem. In fact, in light of evidence which during last year's debate was just beginning to emerge, we have found that the markets for energy derivatives and the physical energy prices and supplies have caused a problem. In the West, we had huge spikes. We have had a long and vigorous floor debate about this amendment. There were many detractors who basically said at the time there was no conclusive evidence that Enron manipulated western energy markets and there was no need to proceed. This year, we have heard a lot about how Enron in fact has manipulated markets. Less than a month after the Senate passed this comprehensive Energy bill with this language in it, Enron's ``smoking gun'' memos were released detailing a number of the company's schemes for driving up the prices. My colleagues are aware that Enron has continued to release various amounts of information about this unbelievable scandal and manipulation of prices. Just last week, another Enron trader was arrested. And the complaint of Federal prosecutors said they are uncovering even more details of ploys to manipulate energy prices. We wanted evidence. We got it. In a long-awaited report, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission concluded this spring that manipulation was ``epidemic'' in the western market during the crisis of 2000-2001. But more specifically, in a staff report the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission detailed the manner in which EnronOnline helped Enron to game the California markets. The Commission concluded that ``the relationship between the financial and physical energy products . . . provides the opportunity to manipulate the physical markets and profit in the financial markets.'' Further, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission estimated that EnronOnline allowed the company to reap more than $500 million in additional profits. There it is, right from the Federal Commission: EnronOnline allowed them to reap those additional profits. As we approach this very important issue in a vote here in a few minutes, my colleagues need to step up and close this loophole that the President's Working Group on Financial Markets first argued against because it said we didn't have real credibility on manipulation. Now we have the credibility, and we have a Federal Commission pointing to the fact that EnronOnline was responsible for part of this market manipulation. I urge my colleagues to support the Feinstein amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. I am pleased, colleagues, that we have been able to reach consensus on the need to include in this bill an increase in the authorization level for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance (LIHEAP) program from $2 billion to $3.4 billion. With power costs on the rise around this nation, it is imperative that the Senate act now to respond to the needs of the 85 percent of eligible families that today do not receive the help they so desperately need, due to the perennially under-funded nature of the LIHEAP program. There is another issue relevant to the LIHEAP program, however, that I hope the Senate will soon consider. I believe that we must address the manner in which the Department of Health and Human Services--and, of course, the Office of Management and Budget--have traditionally administered the ``contingency'' portion of the LIHEAP program. While the bulk of LIHEAP dollars are distributed to states via block grants and in accordance with a statutory formula, Congress has also authorized--and appropriated funds to--a contingency fund, designed to ``meet the additional home energy assistance needs of one or more States arising from a natural disaster or other emergency.'' This money is not released according to formula--but solely at the discretion of the HHS Secretary. Unfortunately, recent history suggests that there are problems with the way the ``contingency'' portion of LIHEAP is administered. In essence, there seem to be widely varying eligibility rules applied to the release of these contingency funds--leading to instances in which HHS has overlooked very real energy emergencies, including the recent power crisis in my home state of Washington. I believe that clear rules for the release of these dollars 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. During mark- up on this bill in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Smith and I added language--adopted unanimously-seeking to put guidelines around the release of these emergency LIHEAP funds. However, I understand that the distinguished Chairman, Senator Gregg, and Ranking Member, Senator Kennedy, intend to reauthorize the LIHEAP program in their Committee this year and examine very closely the administration of these contingency funds. I believe the language that Senator Smith and I authored would go a long way toward adding clarity to the process, and I would be exceptionally pleased to work with the Chairman on this and other proposals to reform the LIHEAP emergency program to ensure it is as responsive as possible to the very real needs of low-income Americans.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from California for her hard work on this amendment. I am glad to join Senator Lugar and Senator Boxer as a cosponsor of this amendment. Senator Boxer has spent an invaluable amount of time on the whole ethanol debate, but I think the amendment she offers this morning goes a long way in adding diversity and efficiency to our ethanol plan. It seems my colleagues are enthusiastic about supporting this in the overall energy package. I rise to support the Boxer-Lugar-Cantwell amendment. As we have heard, this amendment would increase from 1.5 gallons to 2.5 gallons the credit available to refiners who choose to use ethanol derived from certain types of biomass to meet the requirement of our renewable fuels standard. Senator Boxer did an excellent job, giving us all a lesson in biomass 101 as it relates to ethanol and the products that could be used as part of this biomass requirement. This amendment ensures that as we strive to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, displacing it with home-grown products that provide both environmental benefits and economic stimulus to our nation's rural communities, we also develop the renewable fuels diversity that is the hallmark of what I think is a good energy policy. My colleagues may have been told this, or they may learn it now for the first time, but it was in 1925 that Henry Ford told the New York Times that ethanol was ``the fuel of the future.'' But while 90 percent of the ethanol produced in this Nation today was derived from corn, Henry Ford's vision was much broader. He said: The fuel of the future is going to come from apples, weeds and sawdust--almost anything. There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. That is what he told the Times back in that period. This amendment attempts to move forward on that vision. I believe it is logical, and I believe Senator Boxer and Senator Lugar are right on target in providing leadership on this issue. While today the ethanol that is derived from corn more or less dominates the renewable fuels market, this is not the circumstance for every State in our country. The State of Washington, for example, is much more a producer of wheat, which would hold significant promise as a potential source for the biomass ethanol. Despite the promise of these alternatives, the technology for producing ethanol from these sources such as wheat and straw and other agricultural products has lagged behind for a number of reasons. Yet by providing appropriate incentives today with this amendment, and promoting research and development, we can move this forward on a cost- competitive basis. The Boxer-Lugar-Cantwell amendment would increase the renewable fuels standard credit for one specific type of material, the agricultural residues such as wheat or rice or straw, from that 1.5 to 2.5, reflecting what is really a recent DOE analysis on what we should achieve. So moving forward on these incentives for development of ethanol production is simply a matter of good public policy. I say this for four or five reasons. We get the environmental benefits from this, we get the potential energy gains, we get the long-term cost impacts of having fuel diversity, and, of course, we get the spread of economic benefits to all of our Nation's agricultural communities. In our State of Washington, there is much going on in this area. There are many farmers who have come together in a variety of ways to join in thinking about ethanol production. With the construction of one 40-million-gallon plant, the State of Washington could become entirely ethanol self-sufficient. According to a study conducted by our State university, such a plan would have a significant economic impact, particularly in our rural communities in the eastern part of Washington. A single 40-million-gallon production plant could create 104 direct jobs and about 300 indirect jobs. Local communities could see an economic benefit, according to the study, of about $19 million per year with a statewide benefit of somewhere between $20 million and $30 million per year. With the construction of these various plants, Washington State could reach self-sufficiency and could, under the fuels standard proposal here today, become a supplier to other Western States. The State of Washington and agricultural communities want to help meet the renewable fuels standard. They want to join with Senators Frist and Daschle in their proposal. But we don't have the corn or the abundance to make that happen. So we want to see this diversity. In fact, a recent Washington State University extension program concluded that we could produce 200 million gallons per year in ethanol if we had improvement in technologies and diversification of resources. In conclusion, to help this become reality, a broad coalition of Washington agricultural and environmentalist interests have banded together. They helped pass this package in our State legislature with a variety of tax incentives and broad production of biofuels. These bills were signed by our Governor last month and they have our State moving forward on this agenda. The Boxer-Lugar-Cantwell amendment adds a Federal dimension to these efforts. This provision reflects good public policy from the Federal Government and good energy policy, and helps those States that are further away from ethanol diversity to participate in our national energy goal. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine and Senator Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Domenici in cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to reduce the prevalence of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system by providing more effective treatment. Forty percent of the mentally ill in this country come in contact with the criminal justice system, many for minor but repeated offenses. This wastes tremendous law enforcement resources that can be better focused on more urgent responsibilities and results in many of the mentally ill sitting in jail cells where little treatment is available to them. My State has already taken some forward looking action in this area, and this legislation is an important next step. The Mentally Ill Crime Reduction Act of 2003 funds new grants that will give States the tools they need to work collaboratively to break the cycle of mentally ill people repeatedly moving through the corrections system. This legislation will allow more jurisdictions to follow Seattle's lead in creating mental health courts that monitor individuals to keep them in treatment and out of jail. It will provide much needed funding to mental health and substance abuse programs, and it will provide critical dollars for treatment of those incarcerated in or released from prisons. The legislation has the support of Washington State Corrections Director Joe Lehman and the Washington Department of Social and Health Services as well as the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and the Council of State Governments. I'd like to especially thank the Bazelon Center for its work in this area. Last year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the imbalance of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found that, while those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately five percent of the population of this country, they represent over 16 percent of the prison population. Of that 16 percent, nearly three-quarters also have a substance abuse problem, and nearly half were incarcerated for committing a nonviolent crime. In some jurisdictions recidivism rates for mentally ill inmates can reach over 70 percent. Police, judges and prosecutors are usually without options of what to do with mentally ill patients, given the lack of health services, and thus many end up in jail for minor crimes. The Los Angeles County Jail alone holds as many as 3,300 individuals with mental illness, more than any state hospital or mental health institution in the United States. Each time a mentally ill individual is incarcerated, his or her mental condition will likely worsen. Once incarcerated, people with mental illness are particularly susceptible to harming themselves or others. This environment exacerbates their mental illness, yet access to effective counseling or medication is severely limited. This in turn brings on depression or delusions that immobilize them; many have spent years trying to mask torments or hallucinations with alcohol or drugs and on average spend more time in prisons. This problem is particularly acute in the area of juvenile offenders. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention reports that over 20 percent of children in the juvenile justice system, over 155,000, have serious mental health problems. This bill creates specialized training programs for juvenile and criminal justice agency personnel in identifying symptoms of mentally ill individuals that will help identify and treat juveniles at an earlier stage. The prevalence of people with mentally illness in the criminal justice system comes at a high price to taxpayers. In King County, WA, officials identified 20 people who had been repeatedly hospitalized, jailed or admitted to detoxification centers. These emergency services cost the county approximately $1.1 million in a single year. In contrast, an Illinois Cooperative Program which brought criminal justice and mental health service personnel together to provide services to those mentally ill patients released from jail calculated that the 30 individuals in the study spend approximately 2,200 days less in jail, and 2,100 fewer days, in hospitals than they had the previous year, for a savings of $1.2 million dollars. In 1997, Seattle Fire Department Captain Stanley Stevenson was murdered by an individual who had been found incompetent by the local municipal court but was released because of the lack of alternative options. This murder was the impetus for the creation of a Task Force that led directly to the formation of the King County Mental Health Court in 1999. The primary reason why this Court has been growing more effective in dealing with mentally ill offenders is that it has increased cooperation between the mental health and criminal justice systems, institutions that have traditionally not worked closely together. Building on the model of the drug court, the mental health court closely monitors compliance with treatment regimens by assembling a team proficient in dealing with the mentally ill and at using the stick of the criminal justice system to make that treatment work. The vast majority of these mentally ill individuals are responsive to treatment. This program has progressed well and is becoming an effective means of helping mentally ill offenders, assuring public safety, and running a more cost efficient system. Yet to allow this system to continue to expand in Seattle and other communities in Washington State, as well as to allow other States to begin using these types of programs, federal grant funding is critical. That is what this bill provides. Collaboration between mental health, substance abuse, law enforcement, judicial, and other criminal justice personnel is also critical to the success of our mental health court program in Seattle. It is only through full coordination between the criminal justice and the mental health treatment community at the Federal and the local level that these efforts will be successful. Similarly, only through full coordination at the Federal and local level will this bill be able to make a critical difference. I believe that some additional improvements can be made to strengthen that critical coordination and I look forward to working with Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy to accomplish that goal. I welcome the introduction of this legislation and look forward to working with my cosponsors to make this bill law in the next Congress.