Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize and congratulate one of the eleven winners of the George J. Mitchell Scholarship, Miss Jasmin Weaver. Jasmin is a student at the University of Washington in Seattle and has been awarded this prestigious scholarship based on her academic excellence, leadership, and community service, Jasmin represents the third award winner from the University of Washington in the last three years. The George J. Mitchell Scholarship, which is administered by the nonprofit U.S.-Ireland Alliance, was created to build bonds between American and Irish leaders and was named in honor of the respected former leader of this body who played an integral part in the peace process of Ireland. This scholarship allows university students the opportunity to do postgraduate study for a year at a university in Ireland. There were a record number of applicants this year, with nearly 300 students applying here in the United States. This award has been particularly important for my home State, with three recipients of this award from the University of Washington in the last three years. Last year's award recipient was Matt Alexander and the previous year Dawn Hewett. I would like to personally congratulate all three winners of this award from our State and I know Washington students will continue their legacy of excellence through this award in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the seven heroes lost in the tragic explosion of the space shuttle Columbia on February 1, 2003. The seven members of the Columbia crew will be deeply missed by their families, NASA, our entire country, and others following this historic mission. Though I could recite an astonishing list of accomplishments for each of the seven astronauts, their most important contribution was the example of bravery, courage, and excellence they set for men, women, and children across the land. I am proud to say that one of these heroes, Air Force LTC Michael Anderson was a beloved son of the Spokane community and a cherished hero for men, women, and children in Washington. But Michael Anderson was a hero long before the accepted the challenge of the Columbia mission. Lieutenant Colonel Anderson knew he wanted to be an astronaut at the early age of 3. This dream followed him to Washington, when he and his family moved to the Spokane area at age 11 after his father was assigned to the nearby Fairchild Air Force Base. Throughout his early education in Spokane area public schools, Anderson remained focused on his goal of being an astronaut, becoming an exceptional science student, and overcoming all of the challenges facing a young African-American man in this country. He graduated from Cheney High School in Cheney, WA, in 1977 and continued his science education with a bachelor of science degree in physics/astronomy from the University of Washington in 1981, when he was also commissioned as a second lieutenant of the Air Force. Anderson later completed a master of science degree in physics from Creighton University in 1990. After becoming an astronaut in 1994, Michael Anderson took to heart his responsibility as a role model for children around the country and back home. After his 1998 flight on the space shuttle Endeavor to the Mir Space Station, Anderson visited his alma mater, Cheney High School. With a crowd of enthralled students listening on, Anderson told the students that they could do what he had done if they set goals and worked hard. Anderson also left the students a reminder of his achievement, returning a school pennant that he had taken to space with him on the mission. On display in the school's main entrance, this pennant, along with a mission patch and small flag that also went into space, continues to serve as an inspiration to the school's students. LTC Anderson is an amazing story of courage, achievement against many odds, and sacrifice for this country. He provided a demonstration of excellence and offered a triumphant example of accomplishment for Americans of all color, race, and background. He will be missed, but he will never be forgotten. The Washington family has also lost another friend in Navy CDR Willie McCool, who made Anacortes, WA, his home during two terms of service at Naval Air Station Whidbey Island. Commander McCool was not only well regarded during his time at Whidbey, but he continued his tie to the community after he left. Community members remember him for his kindness and professionalism and his love of children; he often returned to Fidalgo Elementary School to discuss his work as an astronaut. We lost a good friend in Commander McCool and also lost a piece of home; he brought a bit of Anacortes with him on Columbia in the form of a Douglas fir cone from the surrounding forest. Though the loss of this crew is a sober reminder of the risks involved with human space flight, I join the President and many of my fellow Members of Congress in calling for the continued support of NASA's space shuttle program. Critically, this support, together with a continued investigation of this tragedy, must be focused on ensuring the safety of future space shuttle flights. The space shuttle program remains a leading force in scientific research and in stimualting public interest in space exploration. This leadership is exemplified by the numerous experiments conducted by the Columbia crew before the tragic re-entry, and the interest of scientists, schoolchildren, and people worldwide. The space shuttle is also critical for the assembly and operation of the International Space Station. Importantly, the benefits of the experiments conducted on the space shuttle and the International Space Station extend beyond the scientific community to directly enhance the lives of individuals across the globe, whether in finding cures to diseases or helping us understand the origin of the universe. While the tremendous technical and scientific accomplishments of NASA demonstrate vividly that humans can achieve previously inconceivable feats, the exploration of space also humbles us by exhibiting the miracle of this tiny ``blue marble'' in the cosmos and the wonder and preciousness of human life.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of States and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children. Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at seven percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 214,300 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And just over the last month, our State has lost 2,946 jobs, and over 50 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector. In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington State, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, in October, the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children. The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. Last September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year. The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow. Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion State grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most States, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program. Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, the States that have been left out are those that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low-income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low- income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises. Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP. When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP. Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other states, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 state allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. Our bill allows States to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the purposes of this legislation. Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution of these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment. Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as States face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments. Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. I am delighted to be joined on this bill by my good friend, Senator Patty Murray. Senator Murray has been a champion for children's health issues throughout her career in the Senate. This important legislation addresses the allocation of budgeted but unspent SCHIP funds that are currently out of reach of States and, under current law, are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. This legislation also helps those States with the highest unemployment rates use more of their SCHIP dollars to provide health insurance coverage for low-income children. Washington State is in the middle of an economic crisis resulting from a downturn in both our aviation and high-tech sectors. With the jobless rate at seven percent, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. 214,300 Washingtonians are unable to find work. And just over the last month, our State has lost 2,946 jobs, and over 50 percent of those are in the high-paying manufacturing sector. In 2000, before the recession began, there were 780,000 uninsured people in Washington State, including 155,000 children. That number has surely grown as the economy has worsened and our population has risen. In fact, in October, the Census Bureau reported that the number of uninsured increased for the first time in two years. Sadly, there are 41.2 million people nationwide without health insurance, 8.5 million of whom are children. The increasing number of uninsured isn't the only problem facing the health care system. Last September, the Kaiser Family Foundation reported the largest increase in health insurance premium costs since 1990, while the Center for Studying Health System Change found that health care spending has returned to double-digit growth for the first time since that year. The lack of health insurance has very real consequences. We know that the uninsured are four times as likely as the insured to delay or forego needed care, and uninsured children are six times as likely as insured children to go without needed medical care. Health insurance matters for kids, and coverage today defrays costs tomorrow. Five years ago, Congress created a new $40 billion State grant program to provide health insurance to low-income, uninsured children who live in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to afford private insurance. In most States, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP has been extremely successful. Nearly one million children gained coverage each year through SCHIP and, by December 2001, 3.5 million children were enrolled in the program. Unfortunately, however, not all States have been able to participate in this success, and perversely, the States that have been left out are those that had taken bold initiatives by expanding their Medicaid programs to cover low-income children at higher levels of poverty. Sadly, the recession and high unemployment means that the health insurance coverage we do have for children, pregnant women, and low- income individuals is in jeopardy due to State budget crises. Washington State has been a leader in providing health insurance to our constituents. We have long provided optional coverage to Medicaid populations and began covering children up to 200 percent of poverty in 1994, three years before Congress passed SCHIP. When SCHIP was enacted in 1997, most States were prohibited from using the new funding for already covered populations. This flaw made it difficult for Washington to access the money and essentially penalized the few States that had led the nation on expanding coverage for kids. This means that my State only receives the enhanced SCHIP matching dollars for covering kids between 200 and 250 percent of the Federal poverty level. Washington has been able to use less than four percent of the funding the Federal Government gave us for SCHIP. Today, Washington has the highest unemployment in the country, an enormous budget deficit, and may need to cut as many as 150,000 kids from the Medicaid roles. Because it is penalized by SCHIP rules and cannot use funds like other states, Washington State is sending $95 million back to the federal treasury or to other States. This defies common sense, and I do not believe that innovative States should be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of SCHIP. This is why we are introducing the Children's Health Protection and Eligibility Act. This bill will give States the ability to use SCHIP funds more efficiently to prevent the loss of health care coverage for children. This bill targets expiring funds to States that otherwise may have to cut health care coverage for kids. States that have made a commitment to insuring children could use expiring SCHIP funds and a portion of current SCHIP funds on a short-term basis to maintain access to health care coverage for all low-income children in the State. The bill also ensures that all States that have demonstrated a commitment to providing health care coverage to children can access SCHIP funds in the same manner to support children's health care coverage. First, as my colleagues know, 1998 and 1999 state allotments ``expired'' at the end of fiscal year 2002 and are scheduled to be returned to the Federal treasury. Our bill allows States to keep their remaining 1998 and 1999 funds, and use these funds for the purposes of this legislation. Second, unused SCHIP dollars from the fiscal year 2000 allotment are due to be redistributed at the end of fiscal year 2002 among those States that have spent all of their SCHIP funds. Our bill would allow the retention and redistribution of these funds as was done two years ago through the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Benefits Improvement and Protection Act P.L. 106-554. However, under our bill, States that had an unemployment rate higher than six percent for two consecutive months in 2002 would be eligible to keep all of their unspent 2000 SCHIP allotment. Third, at State option, for certain Medicaid expenditures, qualifying States would receive the difference between their Medicaid Federal matching assistance percentage, or FMAP, and their enhanced SCHIP matching rate. This temporary measure would be paid out of a State's current SCHIP allotment to ensure children's health care coverage does not erode as States face enormous budget deficits. States would be able to use any remaining funds from fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000 SCHIP allotments, plus ten percent of fiscal 2001, 2002, and 2003 allotments. Finally, our bill allows States that have expanded coverage to the highest eligibility levels allowed under SCHIP, and meet certain requirements, to receive the enhanced SCHIP match rate for any kids that had previously been covered above the mandatory level. Children are the leaders of tomorrow; they are the very future of our great Nation. We owe them nothing less than the sum of our energies, our talents, and our efforts in providing them a foundation on which to build happy, healthy and productive lives. During this tough economic time, it is more important than ever to maintain existing health care coverage for children in order to hold down health care costs and to keep children healthy. I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bill.

Ms. CANTWELL

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors of my amendment: Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Murray, Boxer, Akaka, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Feinstein.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this important amendment sponsored by myself, the Senator from Florida, and others, which restores essential funding for education and job training in America. Job training should be our first priority, not our last priority. American workers want to learn new skills, and businesses are looking for skilled workers. So it would be a terrible decision today to deny them the opportunity to provide job training so that they can go back to work. But that is exactly what we are doing in this omnibus bill today. In fact, this bill is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 funding level. That is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 level after the Senate Appropriations Committee voted last year to increase that number to a higher amount. My amendment restores the original committee level. Some would argue that these funds have no material impact because they would like to say that fiscal year 2002 funds that haven't yet been distributed could also be used to offset this cut that is being proposed by the administration. That is like saying there is a magic slush fund for job training when there isn't. The fact is that job training dollars--because the programs continue for several years--are committed over a 2- or 3-year period of time. That is how they make the programs effective. In fact, if this amendment does not pass today and we do not make a decision to restore these cuts, over 65,000 job training opportunities will be lost in America. To further bolster this notion of the fact that these cuts really will take effect and have full impact, I point out to my colleague the GAO study on this very issue on whether the States were spending their workforce investment dollars. In fact, quoting from the report, it said: States are spending their funds faster than required by law. And even though 44 percent of the program funds for year 2001 are being carried over to 2002, many of these funds have already been committed. Furthermore, because of reporting inconsistencies, the Department of Labor data do not adequately reflect the funds and how they have been obligated in long-term commitments. What does this mean? It means that GAO is saying there is no magic slush fund. If we make this cut today, we will actually see a cut in reduction in programs. Some of my colleagues ask: What is so serious about that? Maybe we need a little belt tightening. I point out to my colleagues that we are going through rough economic times. Actually retraining workers who are then rehired by a company to add to their bottom-line profitability is a good economic stimulus package. As Stephanie Powers, CEO of the National Association of Workforce Boards, wrote me: We strongly agree with the GAO's report and we support maintaining current funding levels. We are on the front line of serving over 2.3 million workers who have lost their jobs over the last two years, and this cut would dramatically impede our ability to meet these services at a very critical time. If there is a silver lining to this economic recession we have been in, it is the fact that there are companies and there are businesses that say they still want to hire workers but can't find the skilled workers they need. Take the health care industry, for example. The American Hospital Association estimates that there are currently over 126,000 unfilled nursing positions in the country. Why would we take money away from the training programs to retrain individuals who have lost their jobs and who could go into nursing to give their families an income and give the health care industry the workers they need? While we are facing tough economic times, we are also simply facing a skills gap. The best way to deal with that skills gap is to give the dislocated workers the opportunity to improve their skills. That is why, given the high unemployment rate, and the unemployment claims just last week increasing by 18,000 and over 2 million people having lost their jobs in the last 2 years, this amendment would actually be the economic stimulus we are looking for. I don't think job training is a political issue or a partisan issue. In fact, last year I was enthused by the fact that a majority of Members of the Senate signed a letter asking the Senate Appropriators to increase funding for Job Training Programs. Of those Senators who signed the letter, I want to read from it and quote that they said: We are writing to express our support for increasing the funding for 2003. The ability of a skilled workforce is critical to our Nation's economy and will provide the adequate support for job training. We are concerned that the unemployment landscape may not turn around rapidly and that these displaced workers will not be able to return to their former jobs. Many of them need to prepare for new jobs in the workforce. If the same colleagues who signed this letter will vote for this amendment today, we can put this issue to rest and give the American workers the kind of job training and skills they need. This amendment will accomplish a stimulus for our economy that is much needed. It will make sure that we don't say no to workers and no to the businesses that are looking for help, and it will make sure that we will say yes to tomorrow's economic opportunities for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, which I am proud to cosponsor along with the entire Northwest delegation. This amendment would provide an additional $700 million in borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, which will allow the agency to make much-needed improvements in our region's transmission grid, modernizing lines and reducing bottlenecks. The borrowing authority will also allow BPA to fund new conservation and renewable energy initiatives and make improvements at existing hydroelectric facilities, to make them more efficient and fish friendly. This amendment is consistent with current law, advances many of our shared, bipartisan energy policy goals, and represents a sound investment for U.S. taxpayers. I would also point out to my colleagues that this amendment is similar to legislation passed as part of the Senate energy bill last spring, which contained $1.3 billion in additional BPA borrowing authority. Further, it is consistent with the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003, which provided $700 million for this purpose. The Bonneville Power Administration--created in 1937 under the Bonneville Project Act--has historically been one of the primary economic engines of the Pacific Northwest. Today, BPA owns and operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission system in the region, consistent with principles of non-discriminatory open access. My colleagues may be interested to learn that among BPA's various statutory responsibilities included in the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 is that the agency must ``assure the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply.'' Even more specifically, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974 stipulates that the BPA Administrator ``shall operate and maintain the Federal transmission system within the Pacific Northwest and shall construct improvements, betterments, and additions and replacements of such system within the Pacific Northwest as he determines are appropriate and required to: . . . maintain the electrical stability and electrical reliability of the Federal system . . .'' The additional borrowing authority provided in this amendment will enable Bonneville to uphold these crucial responsibilities. It is also important to note that this infrastructure investment is one for which U.S. taxpayers would be repayed, with interest. As my colleagues may know, BPA makes payment to the U.S. Treasury on an annual basis--from revenues it collects from northwest ratepayers. BPA expenditures thus do not place any long-term burden on appropriated or trust fund activities. Indeed, the principal on all BPA capital-borrowing costs is fully repaid, with legally-required, market-determined interest. Like most of the country, transmission investment in the northwest has lagged behind demand. No major new transmission lines have been constructed in our region since 1987. In the meantime, Northwest loads have been growing steadily at a rate of 1.8 percent per year. This load growth, combined with deregulation of wholesale power markets, has given rise to a 2 percent per year rise in traffic on the transmission system. In addition, the Northwest Power Pool has estimated that winter peak load will have grown from 59,972 megawatts in 1998 to 66,952 megawatts by 2008 or, by 12 percent. But at the present rate of transmission investment--without the improvements this amendment will allow--the system will have grown from only 61,415 circuit miles in 1998 to 62,325 circuit miles in 2008--or, by 2 percent. In short, regional transmission is not keeping up with load growth. To remedy this situation--and in keeping with its statutory obligations--BPA has identified 26 groups of needed transmission projects, for construction and energization over the next 5 to 6 years. The first nine, some of which are already underway, would address the most critically constrained pathways in our area. The construction of additional transmission will reduce existing bottlenecks, reinforce the system to assure minimal conformance with reliability standards for major load centers such as Seattle, Portland and Spokane, and ultimately allow the integration of more than 5,000 megawatts of new generation. I would also like to point out that this amendment will aid in the acquisition of new conservation and renewable energy sources, as well as make capital improvements on the 31-project federal hydroelectric system--all of which are extremely important components of BPA's multi-faceted public purposes. This amendment will enhance the reliability of the northwest electricity grid--and, by extension, the western transmission system as a whole. It is consistent with the missions this body set out for the Bonneville Power Administration, dating back to 1937 and in the legislative history spanning the 66 intervening years. And it represents good energy policy today, which is why FERC Chairman Pat Wood--in hearings before the Senate Energy Committee last year--voiced his strong support for an increase in BPA borrowing authority. I thank Senator Craig for bringing this amendment to the floor today, as well as all of my Northwest colleagues. I believe it has been a tremendous team effort that has spanned both a couple of years and the jurisdictions of the Senate Energy, Budget and of course Appropriations Committees. I would also like to thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members of those Committees for their support today. Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. Thirty years ago, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. That decision, Roe v. Wade, was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. Roe v. Wade held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, States can ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is endangered. Since then, while the Court has consistently ruled in favor of this right, there is no doubt that this right is being eroded. And today, the thirtieth anniversary of that landmark decision, I especially want to thank those who are continuing to provide safe and legal reproductive health care to the women of our community. In the face of crippling challenges, especially violence and threats of violence, these health care workers have held fast in their commitment to provide the quality health care that all women deserve. Like most Americans, I believe that we must work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and family planning. But I also believe that our Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy, and that this constitutional right encompasses the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy. Unfortunately, we are seeing a concerted effort by those who seek to overturn this right to stack our courts with ideological conservatives who seek not only to weaken the right to make personal decisions about one's own body, but also to make exercising that right a criminal offense. As a Senator, I take my responsibility to advise and consent on nominees to the Federal judiciary extremely seriously. While I recognize the privilege of the President to select his nominees, I believe it is critical that we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of each nominee, since, unlike members of the President's cabinet and other executive branch appointees, Federal judges receive lifetime appointments, and are expected to interpret our Nation's laws in a fair and balanced manner. I am especially concerned that President Bush has chosen to renominate several extremists on this issue, especially Priscilla Owen. Her record demonstrates that, as a member of the strongly conservative Texas Supreme Court, she was an activist judge, interpreting the law to fit her ideological ends. Indeed, while President Bush's current White House Counsel was serving on the Texas Supreme Court, then-Justice Alberto Gonzales called one of her rulings ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.'' Many of my colleagues and I spend much of our time, and must continue to do so, defending the actual right to have an abortion. But in my mind, the easiest way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And I simply don't understand why so many anti-choice members don't understand that connection. Studies show that the use of family planning reduces the probability of a woman having an abortion by 85 percent. Unfortunately, the U.S. still has 3 million unintended pregnancies each year in the United States, half of which end in abortion. This is why I support the Equity in Prescription Contraceptive Coverage Act, authored by Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, and why I will be cosponsoring that bill when she reintroduces it. The women in the Senate are in a unique position to fight against the erosion of Roe. I stand with them today to honor those who came before me in fighting for this right. Together we will continue to make sure that the women of America have the right to privacy, and the fundamental freedom of choice in our lives.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, in part the article says: Here in Snohomish County, which has the highest energy rates in the state, more than 14,000 customers have had their electricity shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44 percent increase over 2001. They have seen electric rate increases of 50 percent, as the Snohomish County Public Utility District struggles to pay for long-term power contracts it signed with companies like Enron at the height of the price run-up . . . ``It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5- year old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said Crystal Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all that stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly come home to hurt us now.'' Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have had their power shut off twice this year. Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the baseboard heater in home and has had to rely on a small wood stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in paying her electric bills . . . Mr. President, this article details but two examples of the plight of far too many Washington state citizens--where an estimated 295,000 households were eligible for LIHEAP even before the Western energy crisis and economic downturn collided to exact such a devastating toll. In 2002, while the Bush administration sat idly by, some 80 percent of Washington State's eligible households received no LIHEAP assistance whatsoever. Of the 20 percent that did, 74 percent had children in the home, 14 percent of these households included disabled Americans, and 10 percent included the elderly. The amendment before us today sends a clear message: while the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to the very real economic pain being felt by our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--in my State, a pain exacerbated by a very real energy emergency with its roots in the western electricity crisis--this Congress must not turn its back. This amendment would ensure that an additional 11,000 households in Washington State, and many more through the Nation, would receive much- needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment to provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's low-income families. The amendment before us today would use $300 million in contingency funds included in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill be provide additional money for states struggling to keep pace with demand for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, provides critical aid to many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, as many as 5 million households received LIHEAP assistance during fiscal year 2001--the last year for which such data is available. Since then, of course, the need for this program has grown almost exponentially. In many places--particularly in the western part of our country--the downturn in our nation's economy has conspired with soaring retail energy costs to create record-breaking demand for LIHEAP dollars. I want to explain to my colleagues precisely why this amendment is so important to so many families in my state. On a number of previous occasions--during debate on the Senate energy bill, at various junctures during the Western energy crisis and the ensuing investigations of Enron and others--I have spoken on this floor about the Bush administration's failure to step in and stem the economic bleeding in my state resulting from skyrocketing electricity prices. But not only did this administration sit idly by as Enron and others conspired to wreak havoc on the economy of the West, this administration has also ignored repeated pleas to release the LIHEAP money that would aid those very citizens who have suffered the most from its inaction. As my colleagues may recall, during the height of the western energy crisis--which we now know resulted at least in part from the manipulations of Enron and potentially other energy companies-- wholesale electricity prices spiked to as much as 1,000 percent above normal. While prices on the wholesale markets have now stabilized, one daunting reality we face in Washington state is that, despite a series of rate increases that had reached almost 50 percent in some areas by September 2001, the worst of this crisis is not yet over. The Bonneville Power Administration, which markets about 70 percent of the power consumed in Washington, subsequently put in place a rate increase of more than 40 percent in October 2001. My State and region continue to struggle to pay power costs incurred during the crisis, at least in part due to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's failure to act and void exorbitantly prices contracts signed with the likes of Enron. And just this week I learned that, as a result, the Northwest faces the prospect of yet another round of double-digit rate increases later this year. Already, Washington State has suffered from the second or third highest unemployment rate in the nature for almost a year. Already, utility disconnection rates have quadrupled in some areas of my State. Already I receive letters from constituents who have to make the choice between buying prescription drugs and paying their electricity bills. So my colleagues can imagine just what kind of threat further electricity rate increases pose to the prospect of an economic recovery. I could recount in much more detail this administration's flagrant disregard for the statutory requirement that consumers be charged ``just and reasonable'' electricity rates. But today, I want to focus on the fact it continues to ignore the plight of citizens who have borne the brunt of the economic crisis the administration itself had a hand in creating. During fiscal year 2002, the Bush administration had at its disposal a total of $600 million in LIHEAP contingency funds. Congress appropriated a total of $300 million of these funds as part of that year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill; the remaining funds were appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental bill, which included $300 million in LIHEAP funds that remain available until expended. Due to the dire economic circumstances in which many of my state's working families find themselves, I have repeatedly asked this administration to release a portion of those funds to Washington State. In October 30, 2001, in testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Assistant Health and Human Service Secretary Wade Horn stated that LIHEAP fulfills a ``dual responsibility to provide ongoing assistance where it is most needed and to respond to emergency situations such as extreme weather conditions, supply disruptions or price spikes.'' At the same time, he indicated that there were no plans to release emergency funds due to a drop in fuel prices as well as forecasts of a relatively mild winter. In response, I was joined by my colleague Senator Murray as well as six other members of the Washington delegation in sending a December 10, 2001 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, pointing out that some 73 percent of Washington's low-income households are heated by electricity--rather than natural gas or oil, as in other parts of the country--and that retail rates continued to rise rapidly. I would also point out that since 1980--when LIHEAP was first authorized--electricity prices have climbed 180 percent on a national basis, while oil, natural gas and propane prices have been relatively more stable. In light of all this, we requested an immediate release of the then-$300 million in emergency LIHEAP money. no money was released. On March 8,, 2002, after Congress had added another $300 million to the LIHEAP contingency fund and Assistant Secretary Horn had, in his response to our first letter, suggested that should there be an emergency, the administration would release the necessary aid, I wrote again to suggest we had reached that point. Washington State's utility shutoff moratorium was set to expire, and 5 inches of snow had just fallen in the eastern part of my State. Still no funds were released. On April 12, 2002, I wrote yet another letter--this time to OMB Director Mitch Daniels. After a phone call, he requested more information on Washington State's particular situation. My office provided this information in an April 17, 2002 letter. Still no funds were released. On May 28, 2002, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues from across the country in sending a letter to President Bush, arguing that many States had already exhausted their annual LIHEAP allocation. Still no funds were released. Finally, on August 9, the administration released $100 million of the total $300 million available in fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP contingency funds. Unfortunately, Washington State was not on the list to receive any of this additional money. What this amendment proposes to do is take the $300 million in contingency LIHEAP funds Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and distribute it to this Nation's many families in need. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record and article from the December 22, 2002 New York Times, entitled ``The Legacy of Power Cost Manipulation,'' which describes the situation in Snohomish County, WA.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden. This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the building of convicted offender records has also become more critical. The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use of the most valuable tool at their disposal. One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual assault. The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are being solved. We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known felons. That is what this bill does. In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least 12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the collection of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their rape. When applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a national backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington State University is currently in the process of conducting a national assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this evidence analyzed now. We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden. This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the building of convicted offender records has also become more critical. The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use of the most valuable tool at their disposal. One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual assault. The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are being solved. We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known felons. That is what this bill does. In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least 12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the collection of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their rape. When applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a national backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington State University is currently in the process of conducting a national assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this evidence analyzed now. We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is important that we take care of these individuals who will be left out without the amendment by Senator Clinton. The issue is, unemployment benefits not only help these individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--whether it is the Boeing Company in a downturn or other people impacted by 9/11 who have lost their jobs and need these unemployment benefits--but more importantly, unemployment benefits are also an economic stimulus. Economists have said every $1 spent on unemployment insurance generates $2.15 of economic stimulus. I can think of no better package for us to support in a bipartisan fashion than putting more dollars into our local economies that are hurting. I know our State, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, has an economic forecast that says the next 6 months will not get any better. So if not today, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when will we realize this is an economic stimulus package that we must support. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the creation of a Cabinet level Department of Homeland Security that better enables our border security agencies to coordinate and work together. I believe that if properly implemented such a Department will better protect our country from the threat of terrorism. The tragedy of September 11 demonstrated that our homeland security apparatus is dangerously disorganized, and that our vulnerabilities were real; we learned that we need organizational clarity and accountability to face the crucial challenge of improving homeland security. On balance, the new Department of Homeland Security will reduce our vulnerability to the terrorist threat and minimize the damage and help recover from any attacks that do occur. However, we need to recognize that this is only a first step. The challenge of homeland security will require more than bureaucratic reorganization, we need to ensure that our efforts are bolstered with a real commitment to the attention and funding necessary to implement some of the goals of this legislation. Although I will ultimately support the homeland security bill, I do so with the recognition that no legislation is perfect. This legislation is, indeed, not perfect and it will demand continued attention and oversight by Congress to ensure that it lives up to its aspirations in ensuring our homeland security, while not betraying our principles of governance and freedom. One area that I have particular concerns is in regards to our continued efforts to address the issue of information and information sharing within the careful balance of security goals and civil liberty protections. I am particularly concerned with provisions of the bill that fail to explicitly address the broader concerns of privacy for American citizens and that reduce our access to public information through the FOIA process. I am particularly frustrated because both of these troubling provisions, provisions to enhance sharing of information about suspected terrorist activity with local law enforcement, and provisions to limit access to sensitive information available under the Freedom of Information Act, were negotiated and careful compromises were arrived at in the earlier version of the Gramm-Miller Senate substitute and in Senator Schumer's bill, S. 1615, the Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act. The timely sharing of investigative information between various enforcement and intelligence agencies can provide necessary improvements in our nation's security. Unfortunately, the version that is contained in this legislation provides absolutely no limitations on how this information can be used or disseminated. This is particularly troubling because we have already expanded the type and amount of personal information available in federal databases. To greatly expand access to personal information without providing any protections on its use is a dangerous erosion of our valued right to privacy and has the potential to eviscerate the protections that the Constitution guarantees Americans against unfettered government intrusion into privacy. I support greater access to information, and I believe that it is primarily through appropriate use of information technology that we are likely to make real improvements in our domestic security, but greater access to personal information cannot come without offsetting protections against its misuse. The very broad language, inserted for the first time by the House, offers no procedural mechanisms to assure the government adheres to protections of privacy or civil liberties. Information sharing without citizen recourse or correction, without adequate procedural safeguards, has the potential to undermine the privacy of every citizen. The Senate has already acted on this issue and language exists that can better provide access to local law enforcement while also providing real protections to our citizens. This legislation has already passed the Judiciary Committee and I am committed to working with Senator Schumer to passing this legislation next year. In addition, this bill previously contained carefully crafted language that protected sensitive information from discovery through the Freedom of Information act. The Freedom of Information act is a valuable tool in assuring open and accountable government and I believe that any effort to alter it must be carefully considered. This careful consideration produced the language in the original bill, a compromise crafted by Senators Bennett, Levin and Leahy. As the editorial board of the Olympian wrote today ``The public is already leery of government and understands that public records are one means of keeping elected and appointed officials in check'' Unfortunately, this bill contains a very broad exemption which has the potential to protect much information from public scrutiny. We must be cautious in taking steps that reduce open access to government and I am concerned about the broad nature of this language. I am also very disappointed by how the Immigration and Naturalization Service is reorganized within the Homeland Security Agency. By completely separating the service and enforcement functions of the INS, I believe that we will only be compounding the problems that already plague this moribund agency. Coordination between the service and enforcement arms of the INS is required to make the agency more efficient and to ensure that its dual missions of enforcing the law against those here illegally and facilitating residence and citizenship for those here legally achieve the same level of support. Last, a major stumbling block in passing this legislation has been the concern with the rights of many talented employees already employed by agencies who will be moving into the Homeland Defense Department. I do not believe this legislation provides adequate safeguards for these employees and I believe that the Congress will need to perform a great deal of oversight to make certain that abuses do not occur in this arena. As I said before, no legislation is perfect, and our job in Congress is not over with the passage of this bill. We need to remain dedicated and focused in our task of ensuring that the implementation of this bill is accomplished effectively and consistent with the principles and rights that have made this country great.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise to express my support for the creation of a Cabinet level Department of Homeland Security that better enables our border security agencies to coordinate and work together. I believe that if properly implemented such a Department will better protect our country from the threat of terrorism. The tragedy of September 11 demonstrated that our homeland security apparatus is dangerously disorganized, and that our vulnerabilities were real; we learned that we need organizational clarity and accountability to face the crucial challenge of improving homeland security. On balance, the new Department of Homeland Security will reduce our vulnerability to the terrorist threat and minimize the damage and help recover from any attacks that do occur. However, we need to recognize that this is only a first step. The challenge of homeland security will require more than bureaucratic reorganization, we need to ensure that our efforts are bolstered with a real commitment to the attention and funding necessary to implement some of the goals of this legislation. Although I will ultimately support the homeland security bill, I do so with the recognition that no legislation is perfect. This legislation is, indeed, not perfect and it will demand continued attention and oversight by Congress to ensure that it lives up to its aspirations in ensuring our homeland security, while not betraying our principles of governance and freedom. One area that I have particular concerns is in regards to our continued efforts to address the issue of information and information sharing within the careful balance of security goals and civil liberty protections. I am particularly concerned with provisions of the bill that fail to explicitly address the broader concerns of privacy for American citizens and that reduce our access to public information through the FOIA process. I am particularly frustrated because both of these troubling provisions, provisions to enhance sharing of information about suspected terrorist activity with local law enforcement, and provisions to limit access to sensitive information available under the Freedom of Information Act, were negotiated and careful compromises were arrived at in the earlier version of the Gramm-Miller Senate substitute and in Senator Schumer's bill, S. 1615, the Federal-Local Information Sharing Partnership Act. The timely sharing of investigative information between various enforcement and intelligence agencies can provide necessary improvements in our nation's security. Unfortunately, the version that is contained in this legislation provides absolutely no limitations on how this information can be used or disseminated. This is particularly troubling because we have already expanded the type and amount of personal information available in federal databases. To greatly expand access to personal information without providing any protections on its use is a dangerous erosion of our valued right to privacy and has the potential to eviscerate the protections that the Constitution guarantees Americans against unfettered government intrusion into privacy. I support greater access to information, and I believe that it is primarily through appropriate use of information technology that we are likely to make real improvements in our domestic security, but greater access to personal information cannot come without offsetting protections against its misuse. The very broad language, inserted for the first time by the House, offers no procedural mechanisms to assure the government adheres to protections of privacy or civil liberties. Information sharing without citizen recourse or correction, without adequate procedural safeguards, has the potential to undermine the privacy of every citizen. The Senate has already acted on this issue and language exists that can better provide access to local law enforcement while also providing real protections to our citizens. This legislation has already passed the Judiciary Committee and I am committed to working with Senator Schumer to passing this legislation next year. In addition, this bill previously contained carefully crafted language that protected sensitive information from discovery through the Freedom of Information act. The Freedom of Information act is a valuable tool in assuring open and accountable government and I believe that any effort to alter it must be carefully considered. This careful consideration produced the language in the original bill, a compromise crafted by Senators Bennett, Levin and Leahy. As the editorial board of the Olympian wrote today ``The public is already leery of government and understands that public records are one means of keeping elected and appointed officials in check'' Unfortunately, this bill contains a very broad exemption which has the potential to protect much information from public scrutiny. We must be cautious in taking steps that reduce open access to government and I am concerned about the broad nature of this language. I am also very disappointed by how the Immigration and Naturalization Service is reorganized within the Homeland Security Agency. By completely separating the service and enforcement functions of the INS, I believe that we will only be compounding the problems that already plague this moribund agency. Coordination between the service and enforcement arms of the INS is required to make the agency more efficient and to ensure that its dual missions of enforcing the law against those here illegally and facilitating residence and citizenship for those here legally achieve the same level of support. Last, a major stumbling block in passing this legislation has been the concern with the rights of many talented employees already employed by agencies who will be moving into the Homeland Defense Department. I do not believe this legislation provides adequate safeguards for these employees and I believe that the Congress will need to perform a great deal of oversight to make certain that abuses do not occur in this arena. As I said before, no legislation is perfect, and our job in Congress is not over with the passage of this bill. We need to remain dedicated and focused in our task of ensuring that the implementation of this bill is accomplished effectively and consistent with the principles and rights that have made this country great.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to say thank you to one of the true leaders in the Washington state science community, who has recently announced that she will be stepping down from her position at the end of the year. I am speaking of Dr. Lura Powell, vice president of Battelle and Director of the Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, PNNL, in Richland, WA. During the past 2 years, Dr. Powell has developed a bold strategy to ensure that the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory will play a significant role in carrying out the missions of the Department of Energy as we move forward into the 21st century. The recent installation of two major pieces of equipment will position the laboratory to be a leader in molecular research--research that reaches across many disciplines, including environmental cleanup, national security, and the life sciences. The new 9.2 teraflops supercomputer and the 900-megahertz nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer, both of which are part of PNNL's Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory, will attract academia, industry, and other Government researchers to the lab in an atmosphere of collaboration and discovery. I had the opportunity to attend the dedication of the NMR spectrometer on March 28, 2002. This equipment is poised to play a central role in the fast- approaching revolution in systems biology, the seeds for which were sown by the amazing success of the Human Genome Project. Dr. Powell has set out to establish a systems biology program for PNNL that will position the laboratory to play a significant role in the Department of Energy's Genomes to Life initiative and to participate in the National Institutes of Health biomedical mission. Congress has consistently supported increased funding for scientific research in the biomedical sciences at NIH, and there is an equally important role for the Department of Energy to play in this field. Genomics research holds great promise for unraveling many previously intractable scientific problems, and will one day lead to the development of technologies that will help address some of our nation's most pressing challenges: carbon sequestration and climate change, the national security risks posed by bioterrorism, even clean and sustainable energy production. The Genomes to Life program will indeed enhance the Department of Energy's ability to fulfill its many diverse missions, and PNNL--thanks in large part to Dr. Powell--is poised to be a prime contributor to this initiative. In her term as Director of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Dr. Powell has reached out to create new partnerships within Washington State to support this agenda. They include the University of Washington, Washington State University, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and the Institute of Systems Biology. Meanwhile, conversations are ongoing with still other institutions in the Pacific Northwest that will further expand PNNL's collaborations. These efforts will bring a strong bioscience presence to the State of Washington, provide economic sustainability to the Tri-Cities area and lead to scientific discoveries that will ultimately benefit this Nation as a whole. I want to recognize Dr. Powell for her vision and commitment to public service and wish her much success in her future endeavors.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senate, last night, took a great step toward helping the victims of identity theft, and those law enforcement officers investigating identity theft, by passing S. 1742, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act of 2002. This legislation provides a consistent national remedy for victims of identity theft to restore their credit and their good name. This bill is a critical step in helping victims of identity theft restore their good credit. Identity theft can be extraordinarily destructive to people's lives. People are denied credit, spend enormous time, effort, and money correcting the problems caused by identity theft, and suffer profound frustration and distress in dealing with the problems that result from identity theft. These problems often arise when they have the potential to wreak the greatest havoc: when buying a new home or a car, or getting a loan to put a child through college. It can be devastating to make a major life change, only to find out that your creditworthiness has been destroyed by fraud, and it is going to take months of excruciating effort by you to clear your name. These crimes rarely meet the threshold for prosecution because each crime involves a small amount of money. Meanwhile victims must independently contact numerous federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, consumer credit reporting agencies and creditors over a period of years, as each new event of fraud arises. One of the most significant problems victims face is gathering the evidence of the fraudulent use of their identity. In order to prove fraud, the victim needs copies of creditors' business records, such as applications, invoices or other information related to the fraudulent transactions. These records are often difficult to obtain because the victim's personally identifying information does not match the fraudulent information on file with the business. Ironically, in the interest of protecting consumer privacy, a business will refuse to provide the information to the victim, believing the victim to be an unauthorized third party. This bill establishes a nationwide process for all victims of identity theft to obtain business records that are evidence of identity theft to enable a victim to reclaim his or her identity and assist law enforcement in finding the thieves. This legislation also requires consumer credit agencies to block reporting of bad credit that arises from identity theft, so the harm caused to the victim is stopped dead in its tracks. The bill also extends the statute of limitation from 2 years to 4 years, giving victims a reasonable time period to decide whether they need to sue a business under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Finally, the bill amends the Internet False Identification Prevention Act of 2000 to expand the jurisdiction and membership of the Coordinating Committee currently studying enforcement of Federal identity theft law. This will allow the Coordinating Committee to examine State and local identity theft law enforcement and identify ways the federal government can better assist state and local law enforcement in addressing identity theft and related crimes. The bill is based on a Washington state law enacted in 2001. Other States, including California and Idaho, have enacted similar laws. But identity theft is a national problem growing at an exponential rate. Identity information may be stolen in Washington state and used to perpetrate a fraud in Wisconsin, New Jersey, or Alabama. That is why it is critical that we have passed this bill to help all victims move more quickly and easily through the process of restoring their good name at the least emotional and financial cost as possible. I thank my colleagues who have worked hard with me to bring this legislation to the floor. Particularly, my thanks goes to Senators Enzi, Grassley and Leahy, and Banking Committee Chairman Sarbanes. I also want to mention the broad support that this legislation has received. The bill is supported by the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com, and the Committee has received a letter of support signed by 22 Attorneys General. The passage yesterday of this legislation is a win for consumers and a win for businesses because identity theft leaves both as victims in its wake. It should be among the highest priorities in the waning days of this Congress that we work together to get the bill enacted into law. The sooner we give victims of identity theft these tools, the more victims we will help and the fewer businesses that will be defrauded by identity theft in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. CANTWELL. I am joining the Senator in support of bringing this up under a unanimous consent. The issue the House is looking at is simply another 5-week extension. So, yes, maybe more for the holidays people will think they have 5 more weeks. But the issue is that expansion of this unemployment program is about helping people through a tough economic time. We don't expect that it is going to get any better January 1 or January 31. Frankly, I think if you listen to Alan Greenspan and everybody else in the administration, they don't expect it is going to get any better in the next 5 months. So the point is that we want to have a stimulus for those local economies. My State of Washington, with nearly 80,000 people impacted, has been putting something into the economy. But starting December 31, they won't be because they won't be able to make mortgage payments or take care of health care or do a lot of things. So this is about making a statement and expanding the program beyond another 5-week Band-Aid. If we had a commitment that we were going to be here on January 1 when the next 5 weeks runs out, and we were going to take a look at the next 6 months--but we are not doing that. We are saying we expect no economic improvement. We are not willing to step up, as the Bush 1 administration was willing to do in the 1990s, and say, yes, an extension of unemployment is a good stimulus, a safeguard, while the economy is needed to improve. That is what we are talking about here. So the Band-Aid approach that the House is sending over is simply 5 weeks, basically taking care of the worse case scenario. We need to make a positive statement. I have talked to many business people in my State who are supportive from that perspective of not taking out this income from the local economies that are being crunched. I wanted to add to my colleague from New York, the numbers are staggering. New York has over 300,000 people who will be impacted as of December. Other States: Illinois with almost 170,000 people; Georgia, 125,000 people; Pennsylvania, 125,000 people; Texas, 215,000 people. So there are States throughout this country that are feeling this impact. I think the previous Bush administration was very wise to say a good stimulus and a good support for unemployed workers who have lost jobs through no fault of their own, who cannot find employment, let's keep the basic income going and give a stimulus to the economy. I don't know that the Senator from New York is opposed to negotiating any kind of proposal that would get us past just a Band-Aid. I think we are willing to look at what the proposal is, but this is about the sixth or seventh unanimous consent request and negotiation proposal this side of the aisle has put forward. We are saying that the time has run out and that these individuals are going to get very minimal--if next to nothing--good news about their economic opportunity for the next year or year and a half.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate my colleagues on the passage of the unemployment extension bill which we just did by unanimous consent. This really was a bipartisan effort by the Senator from Oklahoma and from two of our colleagues, the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald, and the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter, who played a very important role in communicating the needs of unemployment benefit extensions in their States. I thank the Chair, the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, who has since July advocated passage of this legislation, talked about the importance of making sure that as our economy has faced a downturn, we continued to make sure the opportunities for income and stimulus in our economy were there. As she fought for the State of New York, which has been gravely impacted by the events of 9/11 and the downturn in the economy where jobs are just not being created, the Senator got all of us in the country to realize how critical the issue was for us moving forward at a time when the economy has not returned to positive growth. Obviously the State of Washington has been greatly impacted by that same downturn, in the aerospace industry, in high tech. This legislation will actually help over 75,000 Washingtonians who will get the benefit of having an extension of a program and, being a high unemployment State, will qualify for the benefits of that program. This is actually something I think a few Washingtonians tonight, maybe a few Seattlites, will be sleeping a little bit better from, knowing that in the impending months, as we struggle to get the economy going again, they will actually be able to meet those mortgage payments, pay those health care bills, and continue to move forward. Economists have said this kind of stimulus has a two-to-one effect; that for every dollar spent on unemployment benefits, it generates about $2.15 into the local economy. We have done a good service for my State's economy and for New York's and Pennsylvania and Illinois, for the whole country, because we will be stimulating those individuals' disposable income. Again, I thank the Senator from New York for her hard work and vision, pointing out last summer the need to do it, being diligent in this process. And tonight, because of this bipartisan support, there will be more Americans sleeping better as we approach the tough challenges ahead in getting our economy moving but knowing that we have not left workers behind, workers who would rather have a paycheck than an unemployment check, but at least now they will be continuing to add to the economy. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum

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

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am proud to join with Senator DeWine and Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy along with Senators Grassley and Brownback in cosponsoring this important legislation. This bill will take steps to reduce the prevalence of mentally ill individuals 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 with little treatment 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 2002 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 their work in this area and their commitment to improving this situation. Earlier this year, the Council on State Governments Criminal Justice/ Mental Health Consensus Project issued a report that detailed the disparate proportions of the mentally ill in the criminal justice system. The Project found that while those suffering from serious mental illness represent approximately 5 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 which leads to these individuals, on average, spending 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 mental 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 spent 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 Seattle 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, operations 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 through 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 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 Chairman 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.