Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to offer my support for increasing the federal debt ceiling by $450 million. This is a difficult issue and I well understand that we need to raise the debt ceiling. We have troops conducting military operations overseas. We are working here at home to address critical national security needs. But if we hadn't acted today, the United States would have been on the verge of defaulting on its debt for the first time in history. This is unacceptable. However, now that we have voted to raise our debt limit, we must begin an honest and open debate about why we are having this vote. I want to make it crystal clear that I believe we need to extend the budget enforcement procedures and establish reasonable discretionary spending caps as soon as possible. At the beginning of last year, the Congressional Budget Office projected a ten-year surplus of $5.6 trillion and the debt ceiling seemed to be high enough to last through fiscal year 2008. That all changed, however, as the projected big surpluses first started to decline last year and then dramatically changed into a $2.7 trillion deficit. We know that the current deficit is the result of last year's tax cut, the recession, and the tragic events of September 11, 2001. One of the most important actions we can take for the nation's future economic stability is to pay down the national debt. According to Chairman of the Federal Research Board, Alan Greenspan, paying down the national debt lowers interest rates and keeps the capital markets and investment going. In January, he told the Senate Budget Committee that one of the reasons long-term rates have not come down is the sharp decrease in the surplus and the diminishing prospects for paying down the debt. I want to make it clear that the change in our fiscal situation has driven estimated federal interest costs higher: CBO has boosted its projection of federal interest costs in 2002 through 2011 from just over $600 billion a year ago to $1.6 trillion. The dramatic downturn in the federal budget will force taxpayers to pay $1.2 trillion more in debt payments, money that could have been used to invest in additional defense, homeland security, education, and job training. Our total budget must be crafted within the need to maintain fiscal discipline, and stimulate economic growth through continued federal investment in education and job training, while also protecting the environment. Furthermore, we need to invest in our nation's economic future by making a commitment to public research and development in science and technology--maintaining our status as a global leader. It is a balance. We must make these investments to secure our country. But we must do so within a framework that ensures we don't spend beyond our means. If we want our economy to be strong, if we want revenues, and if we want to make the right decisions, we need to keep paying down the debt. Having spent time in the private sector, I can tell you this: No private sector organization thinks it can spend its way out of programs; nor can we as a country. This is why I supported and cosponsored the Gregg-Feingold Budget Enforcement Amendment last week-- and why I will continue to work with my colleagues on extending the pay-as-you-go budget enforcement procedures as well as setting up reasonable discretionary spending limits. Some voted against this debt limit increase today because it had not been paired with procedures for a fiscally disciplined framework. I certainly empathize with that position. We are in tough times. And tough times force us to make tough decisions. Today's vote was one of them.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Gregg- Feingold amendment. The premise underlying this amendment--and its extension of the budget enforcement procedures--is that we as a body must be fiscally responsible. We have real responsibilities and real priorities on which we have to make decisions, but we also must have fiscal discipline. In order to accomplish this it is important for us to have a framework by which this body can make these fiscal decisions. This amendment helps us at a time when we have seen a surplus of $5.6 trillion over ten years disappear and turn into a $2.7 trillion deficit. And we know that the current deficit is a result of last year's tax cut, the recession, and the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Having spent time in the private sector, I can tell you this: No private sector organization thinks it can spend its way out of problems; nor can we as a country. I believe one of the most important actions we can take for the nation's future economic stability, is to pay down the national debt. According to Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, paying down the national debt lowers interest rates and keeps the capital markets and investment going. In January, he told the Senate Budget Committee that one of the reasons long-term rates have not come down is the sharp decrease in the surplus and the diminishing prospects for paying down the debt. Our total budget must be crafted within the need to maintain fiscal discipline, and stimulate economic growth through continued federal investment in education and job training, while also protecting the environment. Furthermore, we need to invest in our nation's economic future by making a commitment to public research and development in science and technology--maintaining our status as a global leader. It is a balance. We need to make these investments, but within a framework that ensures we don't spend beyond our means. If we want our economy to be strong, if we want revenues, and if we want to make the right decisions, we need to keep paying down the debt. We must have fiscal discipline in budget and appropriations process. We cannot focus solely on the individual items and programs in our budget, but must look at the whole picture. The budget enforcement procedures help us do this, and help us keep a reign on our spending. These procedures worked successfully as we struggled to get out of deficit spending in the 1990s, and they will work as we struggle to get out of the current recession and deficit financing.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on May 4-6, 2002, students from Tahoma High School in Washington State joined more than 1,200 students from across the United States in Washington, D.C. to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution 2002 National Competition. As a result of their hard work and preparation, the team from Tahoma High won an honorable mention award in the national finals, becoming one of just 22 schools from all across America to come away from the national finals with an award. I congratulate all the students who participated: Heather Aldrich, Laura Baily, Andy Bauer, Travis Beckett, Lance Bishop, Jonathan Bongard, Sheena Clark, Aimee Craig, Mike DeSisto, Casey Dillon, Kiran Garcha, Tyler Hawks, Katie Kennedy, Rebecca Kennedy, David Knotts, Alissa Loudiana, Julia Lowe, Ryan Marsh, Jamaica Morris, Michaela Soldano, Kellie Stendal, Stefanie Waldron, Emily Walters, Ryan Wells, and Jessica Woodell. This competition marks the eighth consecutive year that students from Tahoma High School have represented the State of Washington at the national finals. I recognize the dedication of the Tahoma High School faculty, particularly Stephanie Davis, the team's advisor, as well as the hard work and commitment of the students who have made this tremendous accomplishment possible. Successful participation in the We the People program requires students to achieve a high caliber of constitutional knowledge. During the three-day national competition, the students presented oral arguments on constitutional topics before a panel of judges. Their testimony was followed by a period of questioning by the judges, who probed the depth of their understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge. Again, I applaud the accomplishments of the Tahoma High School team. I am confident that their success in the national competition will prove to be a useful tool later in their lives as they continue to participate in the governance of our Nation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, on Thursday, May 23, 2002, I, along with my distinguished colleagues Senator Murray from Washington State and Senator Inouye from Hawaii, introduced the Spokane Tribe of Indians of the Spokane Reservation Grand Coulee Dam Equitable Compensation Act. In 1994, Congress passed legislation providing the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation with a settlement for the losses the tribe incurred from the construction of the Grand Coulee Dam. The legislation we are introducing today will provide a proportional settlement for similar losses experienced by the Spokane Tribe. The Grand Coulee Dam is an integral part of the Northwest's power scheme. As the largest concrete dam in the world and the world's third largest producer of electricity, the Grand Coulee Dam enables the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, to fulfill its legal obligation of providing the Northwest with an ``adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply.'' My state and all of BPA's customers greatly benefit from the Grand Coulee Dam. Since the beginning of the project in the early 1930s, Federal officials acknowledged that the tribes affected by the construction of the dam were entitled to compensation for their losses. The Spokane Tribe is now asking Congress to follow through on that promise. The Colville Tribe already receives an annual payment in perpetuity of approximately $15 million, plus the one-time payment of $53 million. The Spokane Tribe lost an area that is 39.4 percent the size of the Colville loss, and although the Spokane Tribe did not settle at the time of the Colvilles in 1994, the Administration and Congress have continued to echo the belief held since the 1930s: that the Spokane Tribe, which was affected by the construction of Grand Coulee along with the Colvilles, is deserving of equitable compensation. During the Colville Settlement hearing in 1994, Senators Murray, Inouye, McCain, and Bradley stated repeatedly that, while the United States was not settling with the Spokane Tribe at that time, the United States had the obligation to provide equitable compensation to Spokane Tribe. Just like the Colville Tribe, the Spokane Tribe's lands, fishing economy and culture were significantly impacted. We are here today because the Spokane Tribe and the Bonneville Power Administration have been unable to reach a settlement that is mutually agreeable to both parties during its negotiations thus far. I believe that that the United States has a moral obligation to settle with the Spokane Tribe just as it settled with the Colville Tribe. I am eager to see a fair settlement go forward. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon in support of the trade and worker assistance legislation before the Senate that we have been working on for the last 2 weeks. I recognize the important work of Senators Baucus and Grassley and thank them for their tireless efforts in putting together a good trade proposal that will help workers and businesses throughout our country. The Baucus-Grassley package embraces a balanced, comprehensive approach to free trade. This is the same approach adopted by our predecessors in the 93rd Congress when they passed the original 1974 trade act which did combine the flexibility of trade negotiation agreements with trade adjustment assistance. Indeed, with the combination of trade promotion authority with the largest expansion of trade adjustment assistance in history, we are making a downpayment on the economic growth and opportunity for many people in our country that will impact our prosperity in the future. Trade is absolutely critical to my home State. It is critical to our current economy. It is critical to our future economy. The Puget Sound region is probably the most export-dependent region in the country, and Washington is probably the most trade-dependent State in the Nation. Trade supports about one-third of the Washington State workforce or roughly 750,000 jobs. These jobs pay, on average, 46 percent more than the overall statewide average. These are good jobs. Washington truly is a portal to the Pacific. Our ports--from Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, Tacoma, Longview, to Vancouver--ship everything from electronics, airplanes, to fruits, vegetables, wheat, and hundreds of other products to over 199 countries. I often hear from my colleagues when discussing trade promotion authority, What is it we are going to sell from the United States to these countries? The answer from my State reaches across many sectors: Agriculture, manufacturing, and high-technology products. Trade provides opportunities for both large and small businesses. Washington State, for example, is the largest producer of soft white wheat, of which about 85 percent of the crop is exported to foreign consumers at substantially higher prices than Washington wheat would receive domestically. In manufacturing, the Boeing Company basically generates about $30 billion in sales, a big part of the Puget Sound industry. And 70 percent of the revenues come from overseas. Of the current sale of Boeing products, 70 percent is to overseas markets. We expect that to be 74 percent in the next several years. In our high-tech sector, Microsoft brings in about $25 billion in annual revenue, 50 percent of its sales being made overseas. In these sectors--in agriculture, manufacturing, and in high technology--our State depends on foreign markets to make our economy work. It is not just large businesses; it is small businesses. Eric Jenson of Seattle founded a company designing and building bowed instruments, such as the cello. Initially his business was limited to domestic buyers, but by putting his company on the Internet, he thrust himself into world markets and now sells about 25 percent of his product overseas. As any salesperson would tell you, if you want to sell something, you have to get your product into the store in a competitive fashion. If you have to pay a middleman to do so, the prices will be too high. Similarly, if we want to sell products to the world, we need to get into foreign markets and avoid high tariffs. Currently, our businesses and farmers face tremendous barriers to foreign markets. Indeed, while foreign companies are able to sell to American consumers at import duties that are averaging less about 2 percent, our companies and farmers often face trade barriers that are 10 times as high, basically closing them out of these market opportunities. The key tool in lowering these tariffs and opening up markets is substantial bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. In this way, we can better pursue these agreements by giving the President trade promotion authority. Yet while we give him trade promotion authority, it is clear we should not do that without making sure that certain objectives are met for protection of labor and the environment. That is why the Baucus- Grassley language makes clear to the President for the first time that the relaxation of environmental labor laws to provide a competitive advantage are absolutely unacceptable. By using the Jordan free trade language as a model, the Baucus-Grassley language made stronger by our passage of the Lieberman amendment, that I supported earlier last year, ensures that environmental and labor protections will be principal components for future trade relationships. Also, the TPA bill, as amended, is absolutely clear that our domestic laws are not to be weakened in future trade agreements. As we open markets and help provide training to our workforce, we need to make sure that countries do not unfairly subsidize industries or dump their products in our market. Again, the amendment offered by Senators Dayton and Craig which passed, and which I supported, included extra protections for trade safeguards that ensure that our companies and farmers are protected. While we have looked as these trade agreements, there is one very important aspect of this bill I want to point out: The area of trade promotion authority. Before I get to that, I will talk about the fact that there is a misconception: if we do not do trade promotion authority or trade agreement, somehow we will stop the reduction in manufacturing jobs. It is clear we have seen a reduction in manufacturing jobs in our country and in other countries. But we have not seen a reduction in manufacturing output. What that really means is we have just gotten more efficient and effective at producing products, which means the workforce employed in these areas has been replaced by more productive efforts, which means we need to think about how we are retraining and reskilling our workforce for the future. In the last 3 years, over 70 firms and 15,000 workers in Washington were displaced by trade activities and qualify for TAA benefits. Washington has probably been one of the highest States in the country qualifying for benefits under the trade promotion package. But this historic package goes further. I applaud my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for supporting what I think is a great economic development strategy for our future: Investment in the human workforce in our country. This legislation will provide assistance to dislocated workers in several ways. The bill more than doubles our financial commitment to TAA programs, which is a very needed boost. The bill recognizes that to help workers, you have to help communities overall. It takes steps to expand trade promotion authority to a broader group of people. It expands the duration of the benefits from 52 weeks to 78 weeks and allows recipients to complete their training. And the trade promotion authority helps secondary workers who are also impacted by these job layoffs. GAO published an initial report that shows that TAA recipients who completed training entered new jobs 15 percent more often than those who did not receive training, and that those who received training, on average, their wage was almost $2 more than their counterparts who did not get the training. We are seeing that this is an effective benefit. An effective investment, a trade bill that will help open up markets overseas, provide U.S. products, and yet legislation that will also help workers whose jobs are lost because of trade activities and allow them to become more productive in the future by being retrained. The global market provides tremendous potential for our country's future. I am glad my colleagues have had such a spirited debate on this issue. We need to do more. As my State shows, more and more businesses will be seeking their economic vitality by and through these international markets. So we need to work harder here to make sure we give the power to the President, and to these companies, to make sure their products get fair treatment. This package goes a long way toward accomplishing these goals. I look forward to working with Senators Baucus and Grassley to help prepare our economy for the 21st century by making sure U.S. products have fair access to international markets. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3459

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Incentive Access Act of 2002. I am pleased that Congressman Rick Larsen will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. As my colleagues may be hearing, Medicare beneficiaries across the country are reporting increasing difficulty finding a physician willing to accept their Medicare coverage. In fact, according to the American Medical Association, nearly 30 percent of family physicians nationwide are not accepting new Medicare patients, and 57 percent of Washington State physicians are limiting the number or dropping all Medicare patients from their practices. There is no doubt that we need to reform Medicare, and I am particularly concerned with the Medicare physician fee schedule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Although CMS insists that physician payment rates will increase more than the general rate of inflation, I am extremely concerned that any additional physician payment reductions may dramatically affect the quality of care offered to beneficiaries and further exacerbate the access problems so many of our constituents are now facing. Unfortunately, there seems to be a prevailing idea that government programs should automatically pay less than private insurers for the same quality care. I am especially concerned that providers serving a disproportionate number of Medicare and Medicaid patients are facing unsustainable fee reductions. In its March 2002 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, the independent Federal body that advises Congress on Medicare payment issues, weighed in on the current Medicare reimbursement rate debate. MedPAC observes that ``provider entry and exit data provide information regarding adequacy of the current level of payments.'' Keeping in mind that MedPAC's goal is to ensure that Medicare's payment rates cover the costs that efficient providers would incur in beneficiaries' care, it is especially important that MedPAC asserts that ``evidence of widespread access or quality problems for beneficiaries may indicate that Medicare's payment rates are too low.'' In fact, MedPAC surveyed physicians nationwide, and found that 45 percent said that reimbursement levels for their Medicare fee-for- service patients are a very serious problem. Every day I hear from my constituents that they are facing increasing difficulty in getting primary care services, and from physicians who can no longer afford to take on new Medicare patients. One woman in Steilacoom, WA, contacted me about her son, a quadriplegic, who was recently informed that the doctor who has been treating him for a number of years will no longer be able to take Medicare patients. Another woman from Lynden, WA, told me that her doctor is leaving his practice due to low Medicare reimbursements, her 89-year-old father has also been going to this same doctor and now the family cannot find a local doctor to take him. When another constituent from Tacoma had to move into the city she had to call numerous physicians before she found one who would take a new Medicare patient. One physician in Bellingham wrote me to say that one of his favorite patients will no longer see her family practitioner because she has Medicare. This doctor writes ``when our seniors feel bad and ashamed about going in to see their physicians because their insurance'' coverage is Medicare, I think that reflects very poorly on Medicare, our government, our government, that runs the program, and, to some extent, the caregivers who feel it is a financial burden to take care of our seniors. I couldn't agree more. In fact, according to the Washington State Department of Health, in Clallam and Kittitas counties in my home State, only 20 percent of primary care physicians reported that they would take new Medicare patients. Yet, at the same time, most practices are accepting new patients with private employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests that general physician shortages are not the major cause underlying the fact that so many physician practices are closing or closed to Medicare patients. I understand that there are basic fairness issues involved in the national debate over Medicare reimbursements. I am not pretending that the Senate will comprehensively address geographic differences or payment inequities this session. But I do believe we can look at more targeted, limited solutions to address the Medicare reimbursement and access issues on a demonstration level. We already have a public health program in place, the primary care health professional shortage area designation, HPSA, to determine whether an area has a critical shortage of physicians available to serve the people living there. In fact, this is the measurement used in placing National Health Service Corps doctors in underserved areas. A HPSA can be a distinct geographic area, such as a county, or a specific population group within the area, such as the low-income. However, in many shortage locations, access to care is a problem for only part of the population. For example, while most residents in a city may have adequate access to care, the elderly or poor may not. And while population HPSA designations measure access problems for Medicaid and low-income patients, migrant workers, and the homeless, there is no designation that specifically identifies or addresses Medicare-related demographics. My bill changes that. The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Access Act, will create a new Medicare Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA, through a three-year, five-state HHS/Medicare demonstration project. Primary care doctors in an area designated as a Medicare HPSA will receive an automatic 40 percent bonus on all of their Medicare billings. I believe it is vitally important that the federal government systematically examine different provider incentive programs in order to stabilize, maintain, and increase quality, efficient primary care services for Medicare beneficiaries. I want this demonstration program to examine how we can specifically preserve beneficiary access to primary care providers. The demonstration project will also examine what level of incentive is necessary to prevent future access problems. I want to point out that while current law prohibits multiple HPSA designations, the demonstration project will not affect current HPSA designations needed for other programs, such as Community Health Centers. In addition, physicians in states participating in the Medicare HPSA demonstration project will not be able also to receive payments under the Medicare Incentive Payment program, which bases its ten percent bonus on geographic shortage areas. As I mentioned earlier, geographic shortage areas actually have nothing to do with measuring Medicare-related access issues. There is an abundance of excellent research currently underway at the six Federal rural health research centers on all Medicare provider reimbursement issues. These research centers are already set up for demonstration analyses like the one required under my bill. I sincerely appreciate the help Gary Hart, Ph.D. has provided me in developing this proposal and discussing other, more comprehensive, means by which to look at different Medicare payment and access issues. Dr. Hart is the director of the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center at the University of Washington, which is largely focusing on rural physician payments. I also want to thank Vince Schueler and Laura Olexa of the Office of Community and Rural Health and the Washington Department of Health, for providing invaluable assistance in understanding rural health problems, the Federal HPSA designation, and access barriers for Medicare beneficiaries, especially in rural areas of the State. After we began discussing this problem, they went out of their way to do additional surveys in rural counties to measure the most current access to primary care physicians for both Medicaid and Medicare patients. Finally, I want to thank the Washington State Medical Association and Len Eddinger for their advice and assistance on this issue. I am delighted that the WSMA has endorsed this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that its letter of support be added in the record at the end of my statement. The fact of the matter is that there is a crisis at hand regarding Medicare benefits, and Medicare payments, and as a country, we simply have not invested as we should in health care. I sincerely believe that all individuals should have access to quality and affordable medical care including the ability to visit doctors whom they trust. It will do the country little good to provide guaranteed health care for the elderly and disabled if physicians are unwilling to work with Medicare patients because of inadequate payment policies. I believe the bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Act, is a good approach to examining these very important issues. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bill, and to join me in cosponsoring it. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Medicare Incentive Access Act of 2002. I am pleased that Congressman Rick Larsen will introduce companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. As my colleagues may be hearing, Medicare beneficiaries across the country are reporting increasing difficulty finding a physician willing to accept their Medicare coverage. In fact, according to the American Medical Association, nearly 30 percent of family physicians nationwide are not accepting new Medicare patients, and 57 percent of Washington State physicians are limiting the number or dropping all Medicare patients from their practices. There is no doubt that we need to reform Medicare, and I am particularly concerned with the Medicare physician fee schedule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS. Although CMS insists that physician payment rates will increase more than the general rate of inflation, I am extremely concerned that any additional physician payment reductions may dramatically affect the quality of care offered to beneficiaries and further exacerbate the access problems so many of our constituents are now facing. Unfortunately, there seems to be a prevailing idea that government programs should automatically pay less than private insurers for the same quality care. I am especially concerned that providers serving a disproportionate number of Medicare and Medicaid patients are facing unsustainable fee reductions. In its March 2002 report, the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, MedPAC, the independent Federal body that advises Congress on Medicare payment issues, weighed in on the current Medicare reimbursement rate debate. MedPAC observes that ``provider entry and exit data provide information regarding adequacy of the current level of payments.'' Keeping in mind that MedPAC's goal is to ensure that Medicare's payment rates cover the costs that efficient providers would incur in beneficiaries' care, it is especially important that MedPAC asserts that ``evidence of widespread access or quality problems for beneficiaries may indicate that Medicare's payment rates are too low.'' In fact, MedPAC surveyed physicians nationwide, and found that 45 percent said that reimbursement levels for their Medicare fee-for- service patients are a very serious problem. Every day I hear from my constituents that they are facing increasing difficulty in getting primary care services, and from physicians who can no longer afford to take on new Medicare patients. One woman in Steilacoom, WA, contacted me about her son, a quadriplegic, who was recently informed that the doctor who has been treating him for a number of years will no longer be able to take Medicare patients. Another woman from Lynden, WA, told me that her doctor is leaving his practice due to low Medicare reimbursements, her 89-year-old father has also been going to this same doctor and now the family cannot find a local doctor to take him. When another constituent from Tacoma had to move into the city she had to call numerous physicians before she found one who would take a new Medicare patient. One physician in Bellingham wrote me to say that one of his favorite patients will no longer see her family practitioner because she has Medicare. This doctor writes ``when our seniors feel bad and ashamed about going in to see their physicians because their insurance'' coverage is Medicare, I think that reflects very poorly on Medicare, our government, our government, that runs the program, and, to some extent, the caregivers who feel it is a financial burden to take care of our seniors. I couldn't agree more. In fact, according to the Washington State Department of Health, in Clallam and Kittitas counties in my home State, only 20 percent of primary care physicians reported that they would take new Medicare patients. Yet, at the same time, most practices are accepting new patients with private employer-sponsored insurance. This suggests that general physician shortages are not the major cause underlying the fact that so many physician practices are closing or closed to Medicare patients. I understand that there are basic fairness issues involved in the national debate over Medicare reimbursements. I am not pretending that the Senate will comprehensively address geographic differences or payment inequities this session. But I do believe we can look at more targeted, limited solutions to address the Medicare reimbursement and access issues on a demonstration level. We already have a public health program in place, the primary care health professional shortage area designation, HPSA, to determine whether an area has a critical shortage of physicians available to serve the people living there. In fact, this is the measurement used in placing National Health Service Corps doctors in underserved areas. A HPSA can be a distinct geographic area, such as a county, or a specific population group within the area, such as the low-income. However, in many shortage locations, access to care is a problem for only part of the population. For example, while most residents in a city may have adequate access to care, the elderly or poor may not. And while population HPSA designations measure access problems for Medicaid and low-income patients, migrant workers, and the homeless, there is no designation that specifically identifies or addresses Medicare-related demographics. My bill changes that. The bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Access Act, will create a new Medicare Health Professional Shortage Area, HPSA, through a three-year, five-state HHS/Medicare demonstration project. Primary care doctors in an area designated as a Medicare HPSA will receive an automatic 40 percent bonus on all of their Medicare billings. I believe it is vitally important that the federal government systematically examine different provider incentive programs in order to stabilize, maintain, and increase quality, efficient primary care services for Medicare beneficiaries. I want this demonstration program to examine how we can specifically preserve beneficiary access to primary care providers. The demonstration project will also examine what level of incentive is necessary to prevent future access problems. I want to point out that while current law prohibits multiple HPSA designations, the demonstration project will not affect current HPSA designations needed for other programs, such as Community Health Centers. In addition, physicians in states participating in the Medicare HPSA demonstration project will not be able also to receive payments under the Medicare Incentive Payment program, which bases its ten percent bonus on geographic shortage areas. As I mentioned earlier, geographic shortage areas actually have nothing to do with measuring Medicare-related access issues. There is an abundance of excellent research currently underway at the six Federal rural health research centers on all Medicare provider reimbursement issues. These research centers are already set up for demonstration analyses like the one required under my bill. I sincerely appreciate the help Gary Hart, Ph.D. has provided me in developing this proposal and discussing other, more comprehensive, means by which to look at different Medicare payment and access issues. Dr. Hart is the director of the WWAMI Rural Health Research Center at the University of Washington, which is largely focusing on rural physician payments. I also want to thank Vince Schueler and Laura Olexa of the Office of Community and Rural Health and the Washington Department of Health, for providing invaluable assistance in understanding rural health problems, the Federal HPSA designation, and access barriers for Medicare beneficiaries, especially in rural areas of the State. After we began discussing this problem, they went out of their way to do additional surveys in rural counties to measure the most current access to primary care physicians for both Medicaid and Medicare patients. Finally, I want to thank the Washington State Medical Association and Len Eddinger for their advice and assistance on this issue. I am delighted that the WSMA has endorsed this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that its letter of support be added in the record at the end of my statement. The fact of the matter is that there is a crisis at hand regarding Medicare benefits, and Medicare payments, and as a country, we simply have not invested as we should in health care. I sincerely believe that all individuals should have access to quality and affordable medical care including the ability to visit doctors whom they trust. It will do the country little good to provide guaranteed health care for the elderly and disabled if physicians are unwilling to work with Medicare patients because of inadequate payment policies. I believe the bill I am introducing today, the Medicare Incentive Act, is a good approach to examining these very important issues. I encourage my colleagues to take a look at this bill, and to join me in cosponsoring it. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dorgan-Cantwell amendment that removes existing restrictions on United States banks from financing the legal export of American food and medical products to Cuba. My colleague from North Dakota has very eloquently pointed out that our country cannot use food as a weapon. I applaud him for his leadership in the committee in having hearings about the travel penalties being placed on Americans and also the prohibition of some American farmers from traveling to Cuba to discuss either cash purchases or, if this language is changed, the United States financing of legal agricultural purchases by Cuba. This amendment is particularly appropriate. If you think about it, just last week we passed a farm package basically dedicating our efforts to try to improve the farm economy in America. We did this with the underlying goal of trying to improve the economic competitiveness of American farmers by helping them open up markets. Today we were in the Chamber talking about how to make it easier to have trade negotiations. With this amendment, we have an opportunity to fix what is really an arbitrary, unjust, and illogical sanction on food exports. In doing so, if we change this procedure, we open up potentially billions of dollars of markets for American farmers. Our colleagues may remember that in the 106th Congress, Congress passed the Trade Sanction Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000 in an effort to preclude unilateral sanctions on the export of American food and medical products. In passing this language, Congress sent an important message through TSRA that food and medicine were not to be used as a political tool of foreign policy. Practically speaking, the legislation made it possible for American farmers to export their products around the world, though the law did require licenses from the executive branch for exports to Cuba, Libya, Sudan, and Iran. The TSRA not only addresses the importance of humanitarian goals of preventing famine and hunger, but it also provides important markets for U.S. agricultural producers, particularly in Cuba. Cuba, a market that has been closed to U.S. exports since 1961, currently imports approximately $750 million in agricultural products from countries around the world, including European allies. And one recent study by Texas A&M University suggested a long-term export market potential of up to $1.2 billion for U.S. agricultural products. However, Mr. President, there was a catch with the legislation as it passed in that it put a restriction on the use of any private financing or letters of credit from U.S. banks for those purchases. The restriction only applied to Cuba--not Sudan, Libya, Iran, or any other country--just Cuba. So as my colleague has suggested, food is being used as a political weapon against Cuba. This legislation undermines the spirit of the TSRA in that it effectively continues to use food and medicine as a foreign policy tool. As any farmer can tell you, financing is a critical element of selling your products both domestically and throughout the world. We are blocking American food from going to Cuba because of that inability to get private financing. The potential for the Cuban market to our farmers has been demonstrated over the last months by the announcements of cash purchases of over $90 million in agricultural products that has been made--the first United States-Cuba commercial transaction since 1961. So we know the Cubans are interested and are willing to pay cash. But we cannot finance agricultural sales of this magnitude by cash purchases. This opening is particularly important in my home State. Washington had a strong trading relationship with Cuba prior to the embargo, and I think we would be in a good position to benefit from opening up these agricultural markets. Industry experts predict that Cuba's markets could bring substantial revenue to farmers in my State on products like peas, lentils, apples, sweet cherry and pear production, and many other products. I think given the events of the last week, with President Carter opening a new chapter in our history with Cuba, and the positive steps that have been taken by the Cuban Government in allowing him to come there and address that nation, it is critically important that we rethink this limitation we have had on private financing. My colleagues have said we believe that food and medical products should be sold to Cuba. We have agreed to that. Now all that stands in the way is this arbitrary limitation of saying we are not going to allow you to finance it with private banking in the United States. That is a mistake. We cannot continue this policy and hold not just the Cuban people hostage to food and medical products, but U.S. farmers who have products they can sell there. If we have said we believe they should be able to sell those products into that country, we should be willing to say that there can be financing for those products as well. As my colleague from North Dakota mentioned, we voted on this amendment. It was part of the farm package that passed out of the Senate. We will keep pushing this until we are successful. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the amendment offered by my colleague from North Carolina. I have joined with the Senator to address the shortage of capacity in our community and technical colleges as they attempt to meet the increasing demand for job training during this period of high unemployment. My State in recent months has consistently ranked among the three highest unemployment states in the nation. It seems almost every week across Washington, we have seen more layoffs, including a large number related to the aviation manufacturing industry. Washington State has some of the most innovative programs in the country to provide displaced and incumbent workers with the training they need to find and keep good jobs. Unfortunately, as unemployment has gone up, training programs have had to turn people away, since there's not enough financial assistance available. In March, my office issued a report that documented this shortfall of capacity to deliver job training in our State. That report showed that while there were approximately 115,000 dislocated workers in Washington State in January, and an estimated 38,000 of those seeking job training services, our institutions would only be able to accommodate approximately 12,500 of those individuals. All of these Washingtonians want new skills, and they should have the opportunity to achieve those goals through the hard work and determination required to complete additional job-training courses. Those skilled workers are critical to the competitiveness of our State and national economy, and the firms that hire them. At this critical time for these workers and our economy, community colleges in my State are doing everything possible to serve as many applicants as possible with existing resources. In Snohomish County, over 700 workers are on a waiting list to get help with training costs; Everett Community College is approximately 70 percent over-enrolled; and Lower Columbia Community College and Clark Community College are each more than 250 percent over-enrolled. It is clear that we need to significantly increase our Federal commitment to job training--both by continuing to expand funding for vouchers and Pell Grants, so that workers can pay for tuition, and by assisting our institutions that serve those students, so that they can offer an adequate number of courses for high-demand occupations. My colleague's amendment--now incorporated in amendment No. 3417-- would specifically address this capacity shortage in our community colleges. In areas of massive dislocation due to trade, such as Washington, the amendment would provide emergency assistance to community colleges that plan to create or expand worker training programs. The amendment would also encourage colleges seeking assistance to not only serve already dislocated workers, but also expand programs for incumbent workers at-risk of losing jobs for trade related reasons. I strongly support this concept, and urge my colleagues to support its inclusion in the bill. Assisting workers displaced by trade cannot simply be a single-minded approach. That's why we have worked so hard to ensure that TAA eligible workers have access to an expanded, comprehensive package of benefits that includes up to two full years of income and training assistance, a strong health care subsidy that will help workers maintain health coverage for their families, and job search assistance. We have improved the TAA program a great deal in this bill, but training assistance will not go far if those workers do not have access to the job training programs that they desire because classes at the local community college are full, and because funds simply are not available in the state to hire new professors, offer more courses, and develop the systems to handle more students. That is why this amendment is so important. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to work with us in the future to ensure that a system exists to better support our job training infrastructure in the future.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the Inspectors General of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to conduct independent investigations any time there is a fatality within the ranks of our Federal wildland firefighters. I believe this is a modest, but critical important, proposal that begins to address the fundamental issue of accountability within our federal wildland firefighting agencies. This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on the Department of Interior's and Forest Service's preparations for the 2002 fire season. I am glad we held this hearing, because the importance of fire preparedness was driven home for many of my constituents last year, when Washington State suffered a particularly devastating fire season. On July 10 near a town called Winthrop, in the midst of the worst drought on record in our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names were: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21. I believe we all must recognize the courage and commitment of the men and women who fight wildland fires, and the important work the Forest Service and Department of Interior do on our behalf. We know that firefighting is a dangerous profession, or in the case of these young people, summer jobs that they had taken to help pay for college. But despite the inherent danger, I believe we owe it to the firefighters who lost their lives, and to their families--to ensure that, when planning for this year's fire season, our federal agencies have taken meaningful actions to avoid a reoccurance of the Thirtymile tragedy. Because in the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile incident, this tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' I want to again thank Chairman Bingaman, as well as Senator Wyden who chairs the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, for holding an oversight hearing last November on the Thirtymile tragedy, which cemented in my mind the three areas in which the Forest Service needs to improve its commitment to the safety of its employees: accountability, from the firefighter on the line all the way up to the Chief; training our firefighters to put safety first; and independent and consistent review of incidents in which safety rules have been broken, whether or not they result in fatalities. I believe these observations were further reinforced by an OSHA investigation released in February that found the Forest Service had committed two serious and three willful violations of employee safety policy during the Thirtymile Fire, even stronger citations than those handed down after 1994's Storm King fire, in which 14 Federal firefighters died. One of the issues that came to our attention in our oversight of the Thirtymile fire is that no one, not the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, not the families of the victims, not the public, is at all satisfied with how firefighter fatalities are investigated. After the Thirtymile Fire, the Forest Service basically investigated the incident itself. When concerns were raised that the investigation's conclusions were simply not fair to the victims, who, afterall, are no longer here to tell their side of the story, the Forest Service saw fit to reopen the investigation and modify some of its conclusions. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, did conduct a subsequent investigation, OSHA simply doesn't have binding authority over the Forest Service. I believe this entire investigatory process is flawed. To inject accountability into federal agencies' approach to firefighter safety, I firmly believe these agencies and their chiefs must know that, if employees under their command are injured or killed in the line of duty, there is no question that there will be a thorough, independent and balanced investigation of the incident. This investigation will happen regardless of politics and regardless of whether a member of Congress takes a particular interest in the incident. I understand that after-the-fact investigations do not soothe the pain of the families and communities involved in such incidents. However, my hope is that a proactive system of accountability, which includes a rational investigatory process, will help prevent these tragedies from occurring time and time again. As some of my colleagues may be aware, I added a provision to the Forestry Title of the Senate's farm bill, with the help of Senator Harkin and support of Senators on the Energy Committee, that was very similar to this bill. It would have directed the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture to conduct an independent investigation any time a Forest Service firefighter death occurs as a result of entrapment or burnover. Unfortunately, despite the fact a modified version of the forestry title did survive the Farm Bill conference, this small yet crucial provision was deleted. While my office worked very closely with Senate conferees, this provision encountered a great deal of resistance from House conferees, who tied it to the unrelated issue of stewardship contracting authority. On February 17, 2002, the Yakima Herald-Republic editorialized that this measure would be ``a good start to change one of the biggest flaws in last summer's investigations into the needless deaths of the four local firefighters.'' On May 1, 2002, after it was killed in conference, the paper wrote: ``In another disgusting display of politics over principle, a move to stop federal agencies from investigating themselves when people are killed fighting fires has been scuttled. Incredibly, there was little disagreement about the value of more oversight of the U.S. Forest service after its bungled handling of both a fire and follow-up investigation of the deaths of four local firefighters.'' On May 2, 2002 a Seattle Times editorial called the fight for independent investigations ``. . . a cause worth fighting for.'' It went on to say, ``The changes championed by Cantwell and Representative Hastings are all about accountability and the difficulty of getting the Forest Service to correct known training deficiencies and leadership problems.'' During negotiations on the farm bill, the Department of Agriculture did not oppose this language and it is my sincere hope that the relevant agencies will support the legislation that I am introducing today. I believe it is good policy, and it is ultimately in the best interest of both the management of these agencies and their employees who are out on the lines fighting fires. Moreover, congressionally mandated IG investigations are not unprecedented. Already, the Department of Agriculture's IG must conduct automatic investigations for the proper disclosure of costs associated with pesticide registration. The Department of Defense's IG must conduct investigations for the effectiveness of voting assistance programs. HUD, and the Department of Commerce's IGs have also been directed to conduct investigations of this sort. And the list goes on. I hope we will soon add to this list the investigations proposed in this legislation. There must be an automatic, independent investigation of any fire- related fatality. The families who have lost loved ones are asking for these independent investigations. The impacted communities are asking for this. And editorials from major dailies across my home State of Washington have cited the lack of investigatory independence as a critical problem during the Thirtymile tragedy's aftermath. I believe we can go a long way to begin addressing these concerns if we were to enact the legislation I have introduced today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would direct the Inspectors General of the Departments of Interior and Agriculture to conduct independent investigations any time there is a fatality within the ranks of our Federal wildland firefighters. I believe this is a modest, but critical important, proposal that begins to address the fundamental issue of accountability within our federal wildland firefighting agencies. This morning the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, on which I serve, held a hearing on the Department of Interior's and Forest Service's preparations for the 2002 fire season. I am glad we held this hearing, because the importance of fire preparedness was driven home for many of my constituents last year, when Washington State suffered a particularly devastating fire season. On July 10 near a town called Winthrop, in the midst of the worst drought on record in our State, the Thirtymile fire burned out of control. Four courageous young firefighters were killed. Their names were: Tom Craven, 30 years old; Karen FitzPatrick, 18; Jessica Johnson, 19; and Devin Weaver, 21. I believe we all must recognize the courage and commitment of the men and women who fight wildland fires, and the important work the Forest Service and Department of Interior do on our behalf. We know that firefighting is a dangerous profession, or in the case of these young people, summer jobs that they had taken to help pay for college. But despite the inherent danger, I believe we owe it to the firefighters who lost their lives, and to their families--to ensure that, when planning for this year's fire season, our federal agencies have taken meaningful actions to avoid a reoccurance of the Thirtymile tragedy. Because in the words of the Forest Service's own report on the Thirtymile incident, this tragedy ``could have been prevented.'' I want to again thank Chairman Bingaman, as well as Senator Wyden who chairs the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, for holding an oversight hearing last November on the Thirtymile tragedy, which cemented in my mind the three areas in which the Forest Service needs to improve its commitment to the safety of its employees: accountability, from the firefighter on the line all the way up to the Chief; training our firefighters to put safety first; and independent and consistent review of incidents in which safety rules have been broken, whether or not they result in fatalities. I believe these observations were further reinforced by an OSHA investigation released in February that found the Forest Service had committed two serious and three willful violations of employee safety policy during the Thirtymile Fire, even stronger citations than those handed down after 1994's Storm King fire, in which 14 Federal firefighters died. One of the issues that came to our attention in our oversight of the Thirtymile fire is that no one, not the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, not the families of the victims, not the public, is at all satisfied with how firefighter fatalities are investigated. After the Thirtymile Fire, the Forest Service basically investigated the incident itself. When concerns were raised that the investigation's conclusions were simply not fair to the victims, who, afterall, are no longer here to tell their side of the story, the Forest Service saw fit to reopen the investigation and modify some of its conclusions. While the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA, did conduct a subsequent investigation, OSHA simply doesn't have binding authority over the Forest Service. I believe this entire investigatory process is flawed. To inject accountability into federal agencies' approach to firefighter safety, I firmly believe these agencies and their chiefs must know that, if employees under their command are injured or killed in the line of duty, there is no question that there will be a thorough, independent and balanced investigation of the incident. This investigation will happen regardless of politics and regardless of whether a member of Congress takes a particular interest in the incident. I understand that after-the-fact investigations do not soothe the pain of the families and communities involved in such incidents. However, my hope is that a proactive system of accountability, which includes a rational investigatory process, will help prevent these tragedies from occurring time and time again. As some of my colleagues may be aware, I added a provision to the Forestry Title of the Senate's farm bill, with the help of Senator Harkin and support of Senators on the Energy Committee, that was very similar to this bill. It would have directed the Inspector General of the Department of Agriculture to conduct an independent investigation any time a Forest Service firefighter death occurs as a result of entrapment or burnover. Unfortunately, despite the fact a modified version of the forestry title did survive the Farm Bill conference, this small yet crucial provision was deleted. While my office worked very closely with Senate conferees, this provision encountered a great deal of resistance from House conferees, who tied it to the unrelated issue of stewardship contracting authority. On February 17, 2002, the Yakima Herald-Republic editorialized that this measure would be ``a good start to change one of the biggest flaws in last summer's investigations into the needless deaths of the four local firefighters.'' On May 1, 2002, after it was killed in conference, the paper wrote: ``In another disgusting display of politics over principle, a move to stop federal agencies from investigating themselves when people are killed fighting fires has been scuttled. Incredibly, there was little disagreement about the value of more oversight of the U.S. Forest service after its bungled handling of both a fire and follow-up investigation of the deaths of four local firefighters.'' On May 2, 2002 a Seattle Times editorial called the fight for independent investigations ``. . . a cause worth fighting for.'' It went on to say, ``The changes championed by Cantwell and Representative Hastings are all about accountability and the difficulty of getting the Forest Service to correct known training deficiencies and leadership problems.'' During negotiations on the farm bill, the Department of Agriculture did not oppose this language and it is my sincere hope that the relevant agencies will support the legislation that I am introducing today. I believe it is good policy, and it is ultimately in the best interest of both the management of these agencies and their employees who are out on the lines fighting fires. Moreover, congressionally mandated IG investigations are not unprecedented. Already, the Department of Agriculture's IG must conduct automatic investigations for the proper disclosure of costs associated with pesticide registration. The Department of Defense's IG must conduct investigations for the effectiveness of voting assistance programs. HUD, and the Department of Commerce's IGs have also been directed to conduct investigations of this sort. And the list goes on. I hope we will soon add to this list the investigations proposed in this legislation. There must be an automatic, independent investigation of any fire- related fatality. The families who have lost loved ones are asking for these independent investigations. The impacted communities are asking for this. And editorials from major dailies across my home State of Washington have cited the lack of investigatory independence as a critical problem during the Thirtymile tragedy's aftermath. I believe we can go a long way to begin addressing these concerns if we were to enact the legislation I have introduced today.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to discuss the documents that were released yesterday, which illustrate how Enron has manipulated energy markets in California and in many Western States. Based on yesterday's revelations, I believe ratepayers deserve prompt relief from Enron's trading practices. I think these documents show Washington State electricity consumers what they have suspected all along, that prices have been manipulated and they have, as a result, paid higher energy prices, many up to double-digit rate increases. Many of you may have seen the articles. I want to have several of these printed in the Congressional Record. They emphasize the information that is being provided in documents I think my colleagues from California had printed in the Record. The New York Times, the headline was: Enron Forced Up California Energy Prices, Documents Show. Another article that was printed in the LA times: Memo Shows Enron's Role in Power Crisis. Energy: ``Smoking gun'' document by company lawyers reveals tactics used to create electricity shortage in California, then drive up prices. Another in the Washington Post: Papers Show That Enron Manipulated California Crisis. I ask unanimous consent these be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, these articles show what consumers in my State have thought all along, that these prices were being manipulated. That is why in January of this year I asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to investigate these high prices that have literally cost people jobs, made consumers pay as much as 60-percent rate increases, and have made it tough for our economy in Washington State to continue to thrive with these high energy prices in some industries such as aluminum and other intensive energy businesses. Yet what has happened--I do not know if other people in the country realize this--is our consumers may end up paying these high rates for many years, even though Enron has gone bankrupt. The reason is that the contracts these companies have had with Enron are as many as 5-year to 7-year--in some cases 8-year--contracts which were negotiated at the time of this crisis and very high prices. In fact, energy prices--the rates were as much as 1,000 times higher during this crisis. Consumers hear there were memos with names such as Fat Boy or Death Star or Get Shorty or Ricochet that were really plans by this company to manipulate prices. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should act upon these memos and basically find that these rates have, in fact, been manipulated. That is right, on the west coast, both in California and in Washington and in Oregon, prices were manipulated and because of those unjust and unreasonable rates these Northwest entities should be let out of these long-term Enron contracts. I believe that is critically important for us in the Northwest, who may face even further rate increases in the future because of these high energy costs, and the fact that the Bonneville Power Administration, for example, would be let out of these contracts, it might save as much as $250 million to $300 million just in the costs that BPA has to pay. Instead, they would be able to go out on the market, not paying the high Enron prices, but go out on the market today and get cheaper electricity prices. I cannot tell you how important it is for us. My colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, and Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Wyden, and Senator Smith--we have all spoken on this issue and how it impacts the whole west coast. It is critically important that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission take the information they have discovered in their investigation and make this decision on unjust and unreasonable rates as soon as possible. I believe the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ought to use its power to void long-term contracts with unjust and unreasonable rates. I also believe we need new Senate hearings to review these findings and to explore all available options for ratepayer relief under federal law. I would also like to add my voice to that of my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, and my colleague from Washington, Senator Murray, in calling for a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice into allegations that Enron has manipulated prices in the Western electricity markets. As my colleagues are aware, the Western electricity crisis of 2000 and 2001 has taken a tremendous toll on the economy of my state, and of Oregon and California. As a result of electricity prices that spiraled to as much as 1000 times the normal rates, consumers throughout the West have paid dearly. They have paid in their utility bills--which have been raised as much as 60 percent--and they have paid with job loss in communities that have seen entire industries shut down. Madam President, throughout the Western electricity crisis, I joined with many of my Western colleagues in asking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to step in and do its job--to ensure just and reasonable rates. For many months, FERC refused and assured many of us that the Western power crisis was simply the result of drought and a shortage of electricity--a shortage that many of us raised questions about, given that it seemed to materialize over night. FERC and this administration repeatedly denied what many of the impacted citizens in Washington state knew intuitively to be true--that our Western markets were being manipulated by a handful of companies that drew enormous profits directly from their pockets and from the coffers of their businesses. With the collapse of Enron, Senator Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, wisely called a hearing to assess the bankruptcy's impacts on the energy markets. At this hearing, on January 29, I asked FERC Chairman Pat Wood to take a close look at allegations that Enron have been manipulating markets. In a letter sent that same day, I wrote: Congress and our nation's consumers-particularly those of the Pacific Northwest, who have suffered through retail rate increases of up to 50 percent over the past year-deserve to know whether Enron was manipulating Western power markets at their expense. After Enron collapsed, prices in the West's forward energy markets plummeted by 20 to 30 percent. Where there's smoke there's often fire, and we must investigate whether we have a simple coincidence here, or something more. The public deserves answers and, if appropriate, corrective action. In response to my request, FERC opened a staff investigation on these allegations. And late yesterday, this investigation revealed the first real smoking gun. Now posted on the Commission's Website, you will find memos in which attorneys from Enron outline their strategies for manipulating prices in Western markets. This has real, direct impacts on consumers in my state. During the height of the crisis, many utilities in my state signed long-term contracts with Enron at prices that looked like deals at the time--in a severely dysfunctional market--but today, are two to three times current market rates. The Bonneville Power Administration, for example, which provides 60 percent of all the power consumed in my state, is on the hook for $700 million worth of Enron contracts over the next few years. In today's market, these contracts would be half as costly. Nevertheless, Bonneville and the consumers of the Northwest continue to be held hostage. They continue to pay Enron. At the conclusion of this investigation, I hope that FERC will see to it that justice is done. If markets were manipulated--as the evidence now suggests--Washington State consumers should be given relief from these contracts. In addition to these ongoing FERC proceedings, I do hope the Justice Department will open a criminal investigation into Enron's actions to manipulate electricity prices and defraud consumer-ratepayers. But I also look forward to this body exercising what I believe is necessary continued oversight. This morning, at an Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing, Senator Bingaman and I discussed the possibility of a hearing on these issues. I also believe that the Judiciary Committee may be an appropriate forum for discussing the antitrust component of these allegations. But in addition, I hope my colleagues--and particularly those who will serve on the Energy bill conference committee--will pay close attention to what this means for our nation's electricity markets. During the debate on that bill, I offered a consumer protection amendment to the electricity title that I believe would have prevented a recurrence of the Western energy crisis and incorporated many of the lessons we have learned--and continue to learn--from Enron's collapse. My amendment suggested that before FERC was allowed to open up markets like California to deregulation, it should have to establish clear market rules, have in place the mechanisms necessary to monitor markets to detect manipulation. It would have directed FERC to take decisive, corrective action to protect consumers when abuses do occur. And it would have given FERC and state utility commissions the access to books and records they would need to discover evidence like the memos we have now found in this Enron investigation, almost two years after the energy crisis began and after months of business closures and rate hikes across the West. I hope Attorney General Ashcroft will heed our call today. I look forward to continuing our oversight of this issue in the Energy Committee, and I hope our conferees will consider this new evidence-- that Enron has been manipulating power markets--as they consider the energy bill. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 5 minutes as in morning business.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to address a topic that I believe is key to the future competitiveness of our Nation, and that is the training of our workforce. These have been tough times for the economy of my State, and certainly the economy of the Nation at large. The most recent employment data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have offered little comfort in Washington, which along with the other Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continue to have among the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. This body moved quickly to provide immediate relief to the workers most impacted by the devastating economic impacts of the September 11th incidents, and I am proud that this Senate under the leadership of our Majority Leader was able to deliver some temporary assistance to workers who have exhausted unemployment benefits. Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment insurance extension. We must continue pursuing long-term strategies for a sustained 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 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 to survive, which means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually update job skills. Even in this time of relatively high unemployment, businesses throughout the country are having hard times finding skilled workers. Last year, for example, 46 percent of American businesses had trouble finding qualified workers. Next year, 29 percent of American businesses expect that they will continue to have trouble hiring qualified workers, even in this slugish economy. At the same time, over 3 million workers are laid off each year, but well under 500,000 receive any sort of training in response to meet the skills demands of those hiring businesses. But meeting those skills demands, and bridging the skills gaps that persist between will not widely occur without a strong financial commitment to ensuring access to skills training programs, and ongoing efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already invest. The decision we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many times over in the form of a stronger economy, healthier communities, and improved quality of life. But the persistent truth is that we are delivering a trickle of funding while faced with a tidal wave of need. During the Easter recess, I traveled across my State, from Olympia to Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cites to Mt. Vernon, 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 change, the demand for new skills has grown; second, that the State has experienced an enormous increase in demand for skills training by individual workers, a trend that appears to be widespread throughout the Nation; but third, that far too many of those workers seeking to access training cannot get the training they need due to limited availability of slots at training institutions and the limited availability of tuition assistance. Last month my office released an informal study of this apparent shortfall in the capacity of training systems in my state to meet emerging demand, and the results of that study were staggering to me. Tens of thousands of workers who want to upgrade their skills have only a limited ability to do so because of budgetary limitations that prevent institutions from adequately adding capacity to deliver training, and because only limited numbers of training vouchers are available through the federal job training system. I might add that our governor has truly been a leader in expanding access to training. In response to the recent wave of layoffs in our State, he managed to add more than 1,300 additional adult worker- training slots to the state's community and technical college system. Even in the face of our state's terrible revenue crunch, Governor Locke has made that commitment, and he deserves tremendous credit for it. But it is clear that states need additional help from the Federal Government. Workforce investment must be a national priority. As my colleagues know, the programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act are only in their second year of implementation. Although we still have several job-training programs offered through the Federal Government, the WIA system is clearly the centerpiece. It is the only Federal system designed to meet a broad range of worker needs, and it emerged from years of bipartisan work by Congress to consolidate at least 17 Federal programs into one system for delivering employment and training services. Continuing our financial commitment to WIA programs at this critical stage in their development is essential to effective implementation of these system-wide reforms. Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Wellstone, and our other colleagues took an enouous step in passing WIA in 1998. And despite bumps in the road, the system is already showing great promise. Nonetheless, as we move toward reauthorization of WIA and TANF, there are a number of issues that many of us will want to address in seeking to take the system to the next level. We must, first and foremost, put an even higher priority on training. In developing human capital that maximizes the power of our economic engine, we must not get caught in the short-sighted quicksand of a work-first mentality. We will do ourselves a grave disservice if we simply force more people without the skills to obtain and hold a job in this dynamic economy, to work faster, in whatever job is available, often low paying jobs, rather than getting them the tools that they need to truly be self-sufficient. Second, we must further enhance the seamlessness of our training systems. As GAO has documented in recent months, we still have partners in the WIA system that do not fully participate, and we still have numerous Federal training programs operating independently of one another, often duplicating effort and resources. We need to keep our eye on ball in this case, that the goal is to provide the highest possible service at the lowest unit cost on behalf of the customers of the system, its employment and training recipients, and we need to maximize the return on our Federal investment. Third, in meeting these objectives, we need to maintain the flexibility of the systems while encouraging the types of activities and use of funds that will help us match skilled workers with available jobs. We need to take a serious look at whether the systems effectively balance the need for accountability with the flexibility for local boards in the use of federal dollars that is will allow them to most effectively target resources at the problems that most plague their communities. Finally, in the short term, we must tailor all of our Federal training systems and programs to ensure the greatest possible access for workers who want to obtain training. That means that it is incumbent on us to keep the door open as wide as possible for adult students to access programs like Pell. And we must try to utilize the most current and powerful technologies to enhance the delivery of training. Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon the existing workforce structure to expand access to 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. A 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 appropriate and easiest administrative method of obtaining a clear and official statement of need. But as a result, many recently laid-off workers are often not eligible for critical financial assistance at a time when the worker's family is experiencing a dramatic decrease in income. The 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-eligible programs. It does this in a very narrow way, by ensuring that institutions in states with high unemployment rates consider current year financial circumstances rather than previous year, income. The second bill also addresses issues of access and delivery of training. While many distance-learning technologies have been developed in recent years, those technologies have not necessarily reached many of those most in need of training. Many workers in need of training may not be aware of opportunities available online to engage in distance- learning training coursework and may not have sufficient access to technologies that provide the means to access such distance-learning technologies. It may not be 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. Additionally, sources of funding to obtain online coursework may not be available to many workers seeking to engage in such training. The third bill that I am introducing is designed to help WIA Boards access more, high-quality information to better understand regional labor market dynamics and improve system performance with goal of identifying emerging sectors and targeting employment and training resources appropriately. While workforce areas may be conducting research now on the employment landscape in those areas and states, those assessments and statistical labor market data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not be sufficient to provide a level of detail for identifying actual job opportunities in regional labor markets and matching available workers to those business demands. As a result, local systems may not have the information needed to most efficiently target the use of available resources and training providers may not always build curricula and programs that most effectively address local workforce needs. This legislation is designed to make resources available to maximize employment and training resources toward meeting emerging area skills needs. I want to make clear that this is not intended to simply reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral approaches within existing workforce development systems. But it should in fact, allow those areas to take the next step by providing funds to enhance the capacity of systems to meet area employer needs. This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal job training systems, and it is in no way independent of the need for additional resources to grow those systems. 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 TANF, of WIA, and of the Higher Education Act this year and next.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I come to the floor today to address a topic that I believe is key to the future competitiveness of our Nation, and that is the training of our workforce. These have been tough times for the economy of my State, and certainly the economy of the Nation at large. The most recent employment data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics have offered little comfort in Washington, which along with the other Pacific Northwest States of Oregon and Alaska, continue to have among the highest unemployment rates in the Nation. This body moved quickly to provide immediate relief to the workers most impacted by the devastating economic impacts of the September 11th incidents, and I am proud that this Senate under the leadership of our Majority Leader was able to deliver some temporary assistance to workers who have exhausted unemployment benefits. Nonetheless, our efforts should not stop with an unemployment insurance extension. We must continue pursuing long-term strategies for a sustained 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 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 to survive, which means that workers themselves need to remain flexible and continually update job skills. Even in this time of relatively high unemployment, businesses throughout the country are having hard times finding skilled workers. Last year, for example, 46 percent of American businesses had trouble finding qualified workers. Next year, 29 percent of American businesses expect that they will continue to have trouble hiring qualified workers, even in this slugish economy. At the same time, over 3 million workers are laid off each year, but well under 500,000 receive any sort of training in response to meet the skills demands of those hiring businesses. But meeting those skills demands, and bridging the skills gaps that persist between will not widely occur without a strong financial commitment to ensuring access to skills training programs, and ongoing efforts to maximize the effectiveness of those funds that we already invest. The decision we make today to invest in our workers will pay off many times over in the form of a stronger economy, healthier communities, and improved quality of life. But the persistent truth is that we are delivering a trickle of funding while faced with a tidal wave of need. During the Easter recess, I traveled across my State, from Olympia to Kelso, Vancouver to Bellingham, the Tri-cites to Mt. Vernon, 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 change, the demand for new skills has grown; second, that the State has experienced an enormous increase in demand for skills training by individual workers, a trend that appears to be widespread throughout the Nation; but third, that far too many of those workers seeking to access training cannot get the training they need due to limited availability of slots at training institutions and the limited availability of tuition assistance. Last month my office released an informal study of this apparent shortfall in the capacity of training systems in my state to meet emerging demand, and the results of that study were staggering to me. Tens of thousands of workers who want to upgrade their skills have only a limited ability to do so because of budgetary limitations that prevent institutions from adequately adding capacity to deliver training, and because only limited numbers of training vouchers are available through the federal job training system. I might add that our governor has truly been a leader in expanding access to training. In response to the recent wave of layoffs in our State, he managed to add more than 1,300 additional adult worker- training slots to the state's community and technical college system. Even in the face of our state's terrible revenue crunch, Governor Locke has made that commitment, and he deserves tremendous credit for it. But it is clear that states need additional help from the Federal Government. Workforce investment must be a national priority. As my colleagues know, the programs authorized by the Workforce Investment Act are only in their second year of implementation. Although we still have several job-training programs offered through the Federal Government, the WIA system is clearly the centerpiece. It is the only Federal system designed to meet a broad range of worker needs, and it emerged from years of bipartisan work by Congress to consolidate at least 17 Federal programs into one system for delivering employment and training services. Continuing our financial commitment to WIA programs at this critical stage in their development is essential to effective implementation of these system-wide reforms. Senators Kennedy, DeWine, Wellstone, and our other colleagues took an enouous step in passing WIA in 1998. And despite bumps in the road, the system is already showing great promise. Nonetheless, as we move toward reauthorization of WIA and TANF, there are a number of issues that many of us will want to address in seeking to take the system to the next level. We must, first and foremost, put an even higher priority on training. In developing human capital that maximizes the power of our economic engine, we must not get caught in the short-sighted quicksand of a work-first mentality. We will do ourselves a grave disservice if we simply force more people without the skills to obtain and hold a job in this dynamic economy, to work faster, in whatever job is available, often low paying jobs, rather than getting them the tools that they need to truly be self-sufficient. Second, we must further enhance the seamlessness of our training systems. As GAO has documented in recent months, we still have partners in the WIA system that do not fully participate, and we still have numerous Federal training programs operating independently of one another, often duplicating effort and resources. We need to keep our eye on ball in this case, that the goal is to provide the highest possible service at the lowest unit cost on behalf of the customers of the system, its employment and training recipients, and we need to maximize the return on our Federal investment. Third, in meeting these objectives, we need to maintain the flexibility of the systems while encouraging the types of activities and use of funds that will help us match skilled workers with available jobs. We need to take a serious look at whether the systems effectively balance the need for accountability with the flexibility for local boards in the use of federal dollars that is will allow them to most effectively target resources at the problems that most plague their communities. Finally, in the short term, we must tailor all of our Federal training systems and programs to ensure the greatest possible access for workers who want to obtain training. That means that it is incumbent on us to keep the door open as wide as possible for adult students to access programs like Pell. And we must try to utilize the most current and powerful technologies to enhance the delivery of training. Today, I am introducing three bills that are designed to build upon the existing workforce structure to expand access to 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. A 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 appropriate and easiest administrative method of obtaining a clear and official statement of need. But as a result, many recently laid-off workers are often not eligible for critical financial assistance at a time when the worker's family is experiencing a dramatic decrease in income. The 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-eligible programs. It does this in a very narrow way, by ensuring that institutions in states with high unemployment rates consider current year financial circumstances rather than previous year, income. The second bill also addresses issues of access and delivery of training. While many distance-learning technologies have been developed in recent years, those technologies have not necessarily reached many of those most in need of training. Many workers in need of training may not be aware of opportunities available online to engage in distance- learning training coursework and may not have sufficient access to technologies that provide the means to access such distance-learning technologies. It may not be 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. Additionally, sources of funding to obtain online coursework may not be available to many workers seeking to engage in such training. The third bill that I am introducing is designed to help WIA Boards access more, high-quality information to better understand regional labor market dynamics and improve system performance with goal of identifying emerging sectors and targeting employment and training resources appropriately. While workforce areas may be conducting research now on the employment landscape in those areas and states, those assessments and statistical labor market data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is not be sufficient to provide a level of detail for identifying actual job opportunities in regional labor markets and matching available workers to those business demands. As a result, local systems may not have the information needed to most efficiently target the use of available resources and training providers may not always build curricula and programs that most effectively address local workforce needs. This legislation is designed to make resources available to maximize employment and training resources toward meeting emerging area skills needs. I want to make clear that this is not intended to simply reinvent the wheel for areas that are already developing sectoral approaches within existing workforce development systems. But it should in fact, allow those areas to take the next step by providing funds to enhance the capacity of systems to meet area employer needs. This is a first step on a long journey as we work to improve Federal job training systems, and it is in no way independent of the need for additional resources to grow those systems. 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 TANF, of WIA, and of the Higher Education Act this year and next.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for bringing up this issue. It is so critical in my home State of Washington, where the University of Washington is looking at increases of 11 to 12 percent. Students are spending between $60,000 and $70,000 for their education. We need to do everything we can in this information age economy, where education is going to determine success; we need to be increasing access. The elimination of a Federal fixed-rate student loan program is a big mistake. We should be increasing Pell grants. We should be increasing access to education. We should be making it more affordable. As somebody who went to school on Pell grants and student loans, I think it is a difficult challenge. In this day and age, with our economy changing, access to education for low- and middle-income students at the most affordable rate must be a priority of this administration and this Congress.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would leave it to the Secretary of Energy to decide what efficiency standard should be applied to residential air conditioners and heat pumps. This is an attempt to reduce by at least 10 percent the energy efficiency requirement proposed in this bill, which reflects the standard promulgated by the Department of Energy in January 2001--the result of a comprehensive rulemaking effort and multiple years of hearings and analysis. The new standard, called SEER 13, seasonal energy efficiency ratio, was supposed to take effect last February, but it was delayed by the Bush administration's suspension of a long list of Clinton era environmental rules in what's come to be known as the ``Card Memo''-- the legality of which is still subject to litigation. My colleagues may be aware of a number of other rules that came under the Bush administration's scrutiny as a result of this freeze on environmental protections. The list is long and includes: the attempt to roll back the arsenic standard for drinking water; suspension of the roadless rule, designed to protect more than 60 million acres of untouched national forests from road building and logging; and even the Clinton administration's New Source Review policy, restricting harmful emissions from power plants. Given this laundry list of environmental reversals, it should probably not surprise us that the Bush administration also took steps to undermine the air conditioning efficiency standard. After merely 2 months of review--compared to the 8-year rulemaking process of the Clinton administration--the Department of Energy last April proposed lowering the air conditioning efficiency standard to SEER 12, or by at least 10 percent relative to the Clinton rule. What is more, the Bush standard wouldn't even go into effect until 2006. And so, the fix is in. If we leave this important standard to the discretion of this administration's Department of Energy, we will needlessly lower the bar for the efficiency of appliances that use as much as 28 percent of all the electricity consumed in this nation on hot summer days. Thus, this amendment would adversely impact our environment, the reliability of our transmission grid and our Nation's consumers. I also think it's interesting to note that the Bush administration's proposed standard has been vigorously challenged--not just by consumer groups, environmental and energy efficiency organizations, but also by utilities themselves, State utility regulators, some of the same large and small appliance manufacturers that this amendment purports to help, and even the Bush administration's own Environmental Protection Agency. Indeed, in comments on the Department of Energy's rulemaking, the Deputy Administrator of the EPA wrote that ``the EPA believes there is a strong rationale to support a 13 SEER standard,'' put in place by the Clinton rule, and further alleged that several DOE's arguments in justifying its proposed rollback contained ``overestimates,'' ``underestimates,'' and ``misinformation.'' Now, why this fight over a seemingly obscure requirement? What is the difference between a 12 SEER and 13 SEER standard? By 2020, the Bush administration's proposal--which this amendment would render a foregone conclusion--would increase by nearly 14,500 Megawatts the peak electricity demand across this country. That is roughly the same as the output from 48 new power plants. It would, every year, add 2.5 million metric tons of carbon emissions into our air; It would cost American consumers $1 billion dollars on their electricity bills. And it would degrade the reliability of our already strained transmission grid. I believe these alone are compelling facts. But I also want to talk about a benefit of the 13 SEER standard--the standard that is now in this bill--that became obvious to us in Washington State during the height of the Western energy crisis. Now, in my State, we don't have a lot of air-conditioning load during the summer because our major population centers are located in a temperate climate where temperatures eclipse 80 for only a few days a year. In fact, our peak energy usage occurs during the winter--for heating purposes. But this is an important issue for ratepayers in my State nonetheless, because we are upstream from--and interconnected, through Oregon, to--California. And in California, air conditioners account for as much as 30 percent of peak energy demand on hot summer days. That is, during the business hours when our economy requires the most energy to function--during the day, when temperatures are also at their height--air conditioning alone uses almost a third of all the energy consumed in that State. Now, a very painful lesson was driven home up and down the west coast last year. That is, when supply is tightest--during periods of peak demand--the grid is also the most constrained and wholesale power prices are the most volatile. When supply is tight, utilities switch on their so-called ``peaker'' plants--plants that are usually the most obsolete, least efficient, environmentally damaging and run for only a few hours a year. And as my colleagues are aware--because of the unique nature of electricity as a commodity that cannot be stored--that very last megawatt of electricity needed to meet demand is by far the most expensive. It can have an almost exponential effect on power supply costs across a market. And it's a primary driver in price spikes and volatility. So by increasing the efficiency of air conditioners--by 30 percent under the Clinton administration standard that this bill contains--we would essentially be helping to drive down peak demand in a way that will also lessen volatility in electricity markets, enhance the reliability of the grid and spare our environment emissions from these peaker plants. I believe the efficiency standard contained in this bill is right for consumers and it is right for the environment. Contrary to what some of my colleagues may assert, it is also imminently achievable for industry. All manufacturers already make air conditioning models that comply with the 30 percent savings standard contained in this bill--so clearly, the technology already exists. And the Department of Energy concluded in its 8-year rulemaking that the standard would actually increase--not reduce--manufacturing jobs in this sector. So I think the choice is clear. The evidence supports the standard contained in this bill. This is an opportunity for this body to resist yet another Bush administration environmental rollback. So I ask my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today as a cosponsor of this amendment, and ask my colleagues to vote in its favor. I also want to thank my friend, Senator Murray, for her work on this amendment. I think there is broad bipartisan support for further development of the fuel cell as one of the solutions to our Nation's 21st century energy needs. The number of potential applications for the fuel cell is almost limitless. In this regard, I was pleased to join with Senator Dorgan in sponsoring an amendment to this energy bill that will require the Secretary of Energy to develop a program to ensure 100,000 hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles will be available for sale by 2010, and 2.5 million vehicles will be available by 2020. Fuel cell vehicles are three times more efficient than internal combustion engines, and they produce none of the harmful emissions associated with fossil fuels. The fuel cell vehicle is a concept that has recently been embraced by the President, and I believe the broad bipartisan support for this technology is already reflected in the tax credit included in this bill for other, stationary fuel cell applications. Currently, this credit is available for fuel cells of one kilowatt or more. What this amendment would do is simply lower the floor to half a kilowatt, or 500 watts. I believe this is an important change, because we should also extend this credit to fuel cells that can be used in numerous business applications. Fuel cells smaller than one kilowatt are already providing power for remote cell phone towers, backup power for certain medical technologies, and even used to light some types of railroad and traffic signals. Expanding the tax credit already in this bill will help further demonstrate the commercial applicability of this technology. This is an important component of any 21st century energy policy, and I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator from California on the amendment. I also appreciate her support for it and her articulation of the problem. I ask the Senator from California--obviously, both of our States are being greatly impacted from this crisis. I think we have had numerous, thousands, of constituents who ask us how we got into this situation and ask us exactly how this situation occurred to this degree and why there were not more Federal protections in place. Given the impact to both Washington and California, consumers want to know how is it this kind of deregulation went through at the State level and then certain protections were not in place at the Federal level. Before the Senator from California leaves the Chamber, I ask if she would answer this question about her constituents' desires to see a safeguard at the Federal level to make sure that further deregulation, and the incurring investigation of high energy prices, are adequately dealt with and whether consumers believe these protections have been adequately up to date, because in my State people have said repeatedly, where is the Federal role and responsibility in making sure these consumers were not gouged? In California, a new system was put in place. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was supposed to oversee that and to judge whether it was going to work as far as market-based rates, and clearly it did not work. Not only did FERC approve it, it did not monitor it after it went into place. It did not stop and say that unjust and unreasonable rates are gouging consumers in California, until the lights went out. So why would we now say--and I am curious as to the Senator's experience in hearing from constituents about this Federal role--to them, we are going to consolidate and make it even easier; put authority under FERC and weaken the standard? Not only are we going to give them direction, but we are going to say we are going to give them less tools to play that role; we are going to give them a lower legal standard by which to review these; we are going to allow them to make market-based decisions without the criteria of respecting the consumers and protecting and advancing their interests as they look at mergers. I am curious as to the California experience. I know the experience has been clear in my State. They wanted unjust and unreasonable rates to be looked at when they were being charged 85 percent more. They thought it was very clear that was unjust and unreasonable. In my State, these people have to live with 8- and 9-year Enron contracts. As my California colleague said, they sold power 15 times to different people. They are literally buying power at a cheap rate and within my State selling it at an increase, double, triple the increase, to other consumers in my State. They are getting away with it, and FERC is doing nothing to make sure those rates are being investigated as unjust and unreasonable, and they are not letting my constituents out of those long-term contracts in the next maybe 8 or 9 years of 85- percent increases in energy prices. So why would States that have been impacted want to give FERC the direction but say, here are the legal standards, they are less than they were before, so go at this business? So if my colleague from California could comment on her experience in that Federal role and what it is that safeguards constituents who have been harmed in personal situations and in economic businesses. States' economies have been ruined over this situation, and now we are saying to them that our colleagues are going to provide less protections for them.

Ms. CANTWELL. I thank my colleague from California for her articulate rendering of what has happened in the California market and the complexity of this issue. She is right, the consumers have asked, Where have the Federal role and responsibility been? People in our States did not think FERC responded quickly enough and do not believe FERC has all the tools now necessary to protect other States from this same thing happening again or to conduct the investigation that needs to take place to make sure consumers are not gouged after September when the expiration of this current FERC order occurs. We are saying: If you are going to give FERC the responsibilities and repeal PUHCA, and also change from SEC to FERC authority, we are giving FERC real responsibility with no statutory guidance. But then we are essentially saying--wink, wink--we are not giving you any of the tools to enforce these authorities; we want you to just be part of the equation but not have any statutory authority to make the investigations. Let's say instead: You can proceed with market-based rates instead of cost-based rates. But if you are going to proceed with market-based rates, you must make sure there are competitive markets. You must make sure you effectively monitor those markets. You must make sure you prevent the abuse of those market powers. You must make sure you are protecting the consumer interests, and you must ensure that there are just and reasonable rates. That seems to me to be very fair, that these consumer issues are protected in legislation. That is all we are asking. If we are going to give responsibility to FERC, let's make sure we tell them to protect the consumer interests, not the big business interests that have caused so much economic devastation in the West. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I want to take an opportunity to respond to a few points my colleagues made about this amendment, which I think is necessary in protecting consumers. It does repeal PUHCA and takes that measure off the books. What is important about that is, while we can say our current law didn't protect us from the mishaps in the California market and the Western energy crisis, it certainly means we should not be lowering the standard and taking away more consumer protections. I applaud the chairman of the committee for trying to focus more attention in a particular area of energy expertise, to say let's look at these problems. But what we are doing by also saying let's have the energy expertise within FERC look at these problems, we are also saying, look at these problems within a framework that is less onerous on the energy companies; let's lower the legal standard by which they have to come before the Commission. And, basically, instead of saying they have to serve the public interest, they go for a lower standard by which those mergers can be completed. It gives FERC the ability, with market-based rates, something they have never statutorily had. So instead of the consumers being able to have cost-based rates on electricity, we are saying, for the first time in statutory authority, they can charge market-based rates. But we are saying charge market based-rates, and we are saying you don't have to consider some of the same things that ought to be considered, given that we are repealing PUHCA; and that is: What is in the public interest, and how is it advancing the public interest, how is it preventing unjust and unreasonable rates? If we have learned anything from the California experience, it is that there has not been enough clout within a singular agency in the Federal Government to adequately protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable rates. They have not had enough protection. That is why the AARP, the American Public Power Association, the Consumers Union, the Sierra Club, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the Air Condition Contractors of America, the Consumer Federation of America, the Consumers for Fair Competition--all these organizations support this amendment, including the Electricity Consumers Resource Council, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, the National Environmental Trust, the National League of Cities, the National Rural Electric Co-op Association, the National Resources Defense Council, the Transmission Access Policy Study Group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group. All these organizations are warning us, telling us, there are not enough consumer protections as this bill moves from having the PUHCA law on the books and having the SEC involved to FERC authority, which albeit could play a more responsible role and one with larger oversight, but we are not giving them the direction to do so in this bill. We are repealing those statutes that would give them specific standards by which to measure both these issues of market-based rates and mergers. We are giving new responsibility to an organization and taking away the consumer protections. It does not make sense, in this time and era of an energy crisis in the West, where consumers have been gouged, where FERC has not been able to protect consumers before the incident in reviewing statistics and after the incident, to now say, Let's lessen the standard by which FERC should be involved, let's give them more authority to allow the energy companies to move more quickly, to move more aggressively without oversight on increasing electricity rates. We cannot say to the consumers of America that we learned nothing from the Western energy crisis. We cannot say that to them. We have to adopt this amendment and say we know that, while we are repealing some laws and putting more responsibility on FERC, we are going to make sure consumers are protected. I urge my colleagues to adopt this very needed consumer protection amendment.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, over the last 6 weeks, while we have debated essential elements of the energy bill, from ANWR and CAFE to electricity deregulation and ethanol, I have joined the sponsors of this amendment, the chairman and ranking member of the Energy Committee and others in trying to forge a consensus on how best to reform the hydroelectric relicensing process. Let me state at the outset, that I share the sponsor's deep sense of frustration and concern with how the existing hydro relicensing process works for all participants. With more than 9,300 megawatts of nonfederal hydropower capacity, Washington State is the single most hydro dependent state in the Nation. The power of the great rivers of the Pacific Northwest has contributed to our economy, created industries and even helped to win the Second World War. There is no area of the country where hydropower generation has greater importance. At the same time, Washington State also relies on the natural abundance of these spectacular rivers. Washington's rivers provide year-round recreation opportunities, including fishing and boating, these features contribute enormously to our economy as well as our environment. Our rivers are also home to salmon and steelhead runs, the cultural soul of the Pacific Northwest. The rivers serve as an important economic and cultural resource to several Northwest Indian tribes that entered into treaties with the U.S. based on the promise to protect and honor their rights and resources. Our reliance on hydropower and on the recreational and environmental benefits of our rivers requires us to employ a balanced approach to their use. Utility operators have shared with me horror stories about how the rising costs, loss of operational flexibility, and lost generation due to new operating constraints imposed during relicensing are impacting their ability to bring power to Washington's consumers. At the same time, 12 runs of Washington State salmon are now included on the endangered species list. We can and must find the right balance to ensure continued survival of these species while maintaining hydropower production. Many hydropower projects, including some in the Northwest, were built without adequate consideration of impacts on the environment. Most were built prior to the enactment of essential environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. Relicensing offers a unique opportunity to reassess the licenses of these hydropower dams, bring them up to modern standards, and ensure the long-term health of our rivers. The current process for licensing hydropower projects has had mixed results. On the one hand, we have examples of great successes. The Cowlitz was once home to some of the most bountiful salmon and steelhead runs in the Pacific Northwest. In August 2000, a landmark relicensing settlement was signed that will open up more than 200 miles of renewed habitat. The settlement is supported by Federal and State agencies, conservation groups, and the hydro utility. On the other hand, the Cushman project has been operating under annual licenses due to disputes over appropriate environmental measures. While Tacoma Power has continued operating the project for over 20 years, there remain a number of serious environmental challenges. And on all sides we have parties pointing the finger at one another claiming that the other is always to blame. I do not believe that any of the parties to relicensing, Federal resources agencies, FERC, tribes, States, the industry or advocacy groups, are to blame for problems in relicensing. In fact, I believe most parties are good actors caught up in an outdated, bureaucratic process desperately in need of reform. There is no question that the existing licensing process can be improved. We can make it faster and cheaper without sacrificing environmental quality. Quicker licensing would improve the efficiency of these projects and improve the environment. This is a goal that I would strongly support, if we were debating such measures today. Unfortunately, that is not what the amendment before us today accomplishes. Instead, the amendment creates a new appeals process, another step, to this flawed process without requiring FERC and the resource agencies to address the fundamental problems contributing to the delays and skyrocketing costs. I agree with the supporters of this amendment that one part of the solution is to allow participants to propose creative solutions in balancing energy and environmental priorities. While I can't fully agree with the approach taken in this amendment, I do agree that parties should be rewarded for coming together and proposing innovative new solutions. But more importantly, there will be no real improvement until Congress requires or FERC and the resource agencies agree to significant structural reform. This amendment falls far short. Section 306 of the underlying bill provides an opportunity to streamline the licensing process by requiring agencies to work together with FERC in a more cooperative manner. It also requires the coordination of environmental reviews and places a number of requirements on FERC to maintain a better, more transparent schedule for relicensing proceedings. But the amendment before us today deletes section 306, the only hope for real fundamental reform of an obviously flawed process. It is important for the people of Washington State to get this right, and soon. We will have to relicense 19 hydropower projects over the next several years. The resulting licenses will set the terms for hydro projects to operate on our rivers for another 30 years. We need a process that will issue licenses promptly, with full environmental protection, bringing these projects into compliance with modern laws. It is disappointing that this amendment will not do the job. I reluctantly oppose the Craig amendment because I believe we are missing an opportunity to accomplish real reform. But regardless where the votes are on this amendment, this is not the end of the discussion about hydropower licensing reform, but rather a beginning. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate and those in industry, the environmental community, tribes, States, and other interests in order to maintain the tremendous hydropower assets of our State while protecting and restoring our environmental future.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, my constituents and the constituents of my colleagues from the West, particularly California, Oregon, and Idaho, have seen first hand the devastation caused by the Western energy crisis: wholesales rate spikes of more than 1,000 percent; aluminum workers put of out of work because electricity costs were too high for their companies to operate; and an economic slump in California, Oregon, and Washington directly related to last year's high energy prices. In my home state of Washington we are still paying the price for the lack of consumer protections during the energy crisis. Ratepayers in my home of Edmonds, WA are paying almost 60 percent more than they did before the crisis, with no relief in sight. Nowhere do consumers know the importance of proper safeguards more acutely than in the West. In the wake of what happened there, why would we even consider reducing consumer protections and lowering legal standards? Why would we promote further deregulation and at the same time abandon consumer protections? Ask anyone from California whether they want more deregulation without consumer protection. They will all tell you the same answer: After Enron and the western energy crisis we should strengthen consumer protection laws, not weaken them. They know that without adequate consumer protections, electricity markets may not work to protect consumers. One need look no further than a February 2001 poll in which California residents were asked if they supported the legislature's decision to deregulate the electricity market. By nearly 40 percent, Californians opposed the deregulation plan. There are many other public opinion polls across this country that show consumers are very concerned about any move toward more deregulation without sufficient consumer protection. A July 2001 survey by the Mellman Group revealed that North Carolinians opposed deregulation by a 14 percent margin and by a 40 percent margin thought that deregulation would cause rate increases. In March of this year, a different Mellman survey showed that 60 percent of Montanans thought that deregulation had caused higher electricity rates. The public voice is clear. I think it is important to review how we got to this point, beginning with the first major piece of legislation to protect ratepayers, passed during the first term of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidency. In the 1920s our system of utility regulation began to fail consumers. Complex corporate structures made it impossible to offer adequate consumers protections. By 1932, 45 percent of all electricity was controlled by three groups. Because of their market power and complex and misleading corporate structure, the utilities owned by these holding companies were able to charge excessive rates, which were passed directly to consumers. In response to this situation, this body passed into law the Public Utilities Act of 1935 to help bring the system under control and offer consumers adequate safeguards. The two key titles of the Public Utilities Act--PUHCA and the Federal Power Act--put in place important consumer protection regulations. PUHCA required utilities to either largely operate within a single state, or be subject to strict federal regulation by the SEC. The Federal Power Act created a consumer protection framework for the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce and wholesale rates for electricity. Today, we are faced with an energy bill that repeals key consumer protections from these pieces of legislation. Albeit, I know the chairman of our committee wants those laws to be more effective, and to be more effective under FERC, while I agree there can be authorities new at FERC, I want to make sure that, while we change from the SEC to FERC, we don't repeal the legal standards or the framework for consumer protection. Just think about the energy crises of the past. In the 1920s, when corporate structures got out of control and retail consumers suffered the consequences, we responded with the Public Utilities Act. During the 1970s energy crisis, we responded with the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. But today we are faced with the prospect of responding to the Western energy crisis of 2001 with more of the same that helped cause the crisis in the first place. I believe the Western energy crisis was really precipitated by two factors: obviously, California adopted a restructuring plan without adequate thought and deliberation, and the fact that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signed off on it. That is right, they signed off on the California plan. Then FERC allowed generators in the West to charge market-based rates without first ensuring that those markets were sufficient in their competition and that they were adequately monitoring those markets over time. The definition of insanity is watching something fail and then doing it again. And that is what we are headed towards doing. It would be insane for us to enact further flawed deregulation without at least addressing the importance of providing consumer protections. Consumers know that they are ultimately the ones who will get stuck holding the check. And they are right. It is wrong policy to deregulate without protecting consumers. And ultimately, it hurts them where it hurts most: in their pocketbooks. This amendment addresses the need for consumer protection from deregulation by creating safeguards from potential market failures and abuses. The amendment would prevent a repeat of soaring electricity rates in deregulated markets by directing FERC to establish rules and enforcement procedures for market monitoring to protect electricity consumers. The market rate provisions of this amendment are actually quite simple in concept. As I said earlier, for the first time in this legislation, the underlying authority is given to FERC instead of to the SEC. While giving this new power to FERC, we need to make sure consumers are protected by making sure they do not lower the standard. I believe it is critical that within this legislation we not lower the legal standard by which these mergers were held in the past. FERC can have new responsibility, but we must make sure we are not lowering the legal standard by which we allow these companies to merge. FERC needs statutory guidance on just what factors it should consider before it allows market-based rates to be charged. That is, before FERC opens up the energy market, it should have to ensure that those markets are going to operate efficiently and not gouge consumers. The bill currently does not adequately offer consumer protection, especially in view of the House of Representatives' electricity bill, which I think goes too far in giving a wish list to the big energy companies. The electricity provisions of this bill right now actually lower the overall merger standard. This amendment would maintain current law with regard to that merger standard. It is a very important point--that current law be the standard for FERC. In fact, there have been something like 30 major utility mergers and acquisitions over the past few years alone. That is a testament to the need for laws to protect consumers from consolidation which is happening in the utility sector. It is also a powerful reminder that current law is in no way too prescriptive. Maintaining the legal merger standard currently on the books--I think it is important to do this--is a critical part of the amendment. The electricity provisions in this bill also fall short, in my view, on the issue of insulating consumers from the economically devastating effects of the energy markets which have gone horribly awry. The primary difference between the Senate energy bill as it is currently written and what we are trying to accomplish with this amendment is simple. It is the difference between preventing dysfunctional markets from happening in the first place, and post hoc investigations that are unlikely to provide better relief for consumers harmed by skyrocketing energy prices. What I mean by that is, without these specific requirements in place, and new mergers and market-based rates happening, and without the oversight, it is very hard, once consumers are gouged, to then come back and ask for records and information that show what kind of protections should have been on the books. I do not think many of my colleagues realize that, for the very first time, this legislation, the underlying bill, gives FERC explicit statutory authority to allow companies to charge market-based rates. So nowhere had FERC ever been given that statutory authority. They had always been cost-based rates. But this legislation will, for the first time, give FERC statutory authority to allow companies to charge market-based rates that they decided administratively to start allowing in the mid-1980s. While the Energy Policy Act of 1992 affirmed the direction FERC was moving in regard to opening of the Nation's transmission system, it did not contain this explicit authority for FERC to grant market-based rates. I believe this is a very important point because if we are going to move forward in saying that market-based rates should be there, then we must make sure those consumer protections are in place as well. In sifting through the ashes of the California experiment, it is now obvious that FERC did not pause to consider the constraints--whether real or manipulated--on natural gas transportation into the State, which, in turn, drove up the price of electrical generation. FERC approved a system without assessing the market power of what became known as the big five energy companies in the California crisis, including Enron, and the impact they had. It is also clear that FERC approved the California proposal without assurances that the State's independent system operator could effectively monitor market conditions. I have heard from numerous utilities involved in the California market that the ISO began declaring emergencies purely subjectively because its mechanisms for assessing where physical megawatts actually existed--and whether these shortages were real or imagined--were so incredibly flawed. In addition, it has been repeatedly alleged that the ISO declared these emergencies for political reasons because utilities, as such in those States, were obligated to sell into the California market, first under a Department of Energy order, and later under an order from FERC itself, when emergencies were declared. FERC did not have the market monitoring practices in place that would have been the protections the consumers needed. So why give them more authority now to do market-based rates without making sure the legal standards are in place and making sure that consumer protections are in place? In summary, I want it to be clear to my colleagues that this amendment today should do its job to prevent a flawed deregulation bill and to help protect consumers. This legislation specifically does several things: It helps maintain the competitive markets, it effectively monitors markets, it prevents the abuse of market power and manipulation, and it ensures the maintenance of just and reasonable rates. The amendment would also require utility mergers to serve the public interest and for utility books to be fully open. It would protect consumers from absorbing the costs of utility diversifications and prevent them from being basically subject to the various tactics in which consumers are held to higher costs when the markets are consolidated or market-based rates are charged and things can actually go awry. This amendment does not take away any of FERC's authority to allow market-based rates. It does not stop the move toward deregulation. In fact, it is consistent with the concept of deregulation. It simply says we need a roadmap for consumers. We need protections for this new market-oriented approach. I am reminded by something that FERC Chairman Pat Wood said on March 11: I'm probably the world's biggest believer in markets. But Mr. Wood also said: But I'm also the world's biggest believer that people will take advantage of it if they don't have a cop walking down the street. This amendment provides the ``cop walking down the street'' for our electricity markets in protecting consumers. With all that we have read and seen of what happened during the Western energy crisis and the role that Enron and other power companies played in it, how can we even consider further deregulation without putting in place real consumer protections? It is practically malpractice for us to think about these new deregulations without thinking about how to protect consumers. That is why we are offering this amendment today. We need to say to the people of this country, we are going to protect you from the crisis that has happened in California and in Washington and in Oregon. And we are going to make sure the markets operate in a way in which consumers are protected. This is a critical amendment and should be adopted as a part of this bill. We need to say to the consumers that we are thinking about their needs, their protections, and the high price of electricity throughout the country. I yield back the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, their voice is loud and clear. After last year's energy crisis, it is unacceptable to launch a new round of deregulation without first putting in place adequate consumer protections. I would like to read from a letter signed by the Consumers Union, Sierra Club, NRDC, Consumer Federation of America, and others. It reads: This amendment would add important and much-needed protections to legislation that actually repeals already weak consumer protections in current law. S. 517 repeals most of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA), including provisions that have been in place for over six decades, and does almost nothing to ensure that consumer protections will be maintained. Now, with the exposure of Enron's questionable trading deals, we need these protections more than ever to prevent energy companies from manipulating prices and supply. We need to strengthen consumer protections, not weaken them. Consumers for Fair Competition wrote: In the wake of the West Coast electricity crisis and Enron collapse, Congress should only pass electricity legislation if it takes needed steps to protect consumers and prevent a repetition of these crises. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record letters of support that I have received from these organizations.