Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. It reads in part: The current drought, unlike other recent droughts, is occurring at a time when farmers are facing many other serious challenges. Many smaller farms are likely to face bankruptcy or leave farming altogether. The weak condition of many segments of the agriculture industry in the state makes the industry more vulnerable to the effects of drought. Most farmers are in their third year of net losses due to poor market conditions. Many farmers lack the credit to survive another year without a harvest or make the investments necessary to mitigate these impacts--such as drilling deep wells or upgrading irrigation and distribution systems. From Ritzville to Yakima, from Chelan to Wenatchee, the family farms in my State are hurting. Just this past week I met with farmers from Ritzville; they are wheat farmers. Wheat farmers are seeing a 14-year low in wheat prices. They made it clear they need help and they need help now. Part of our discussion is what is the sentiment for support of the family farms across our country. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article from a local Walla Walla newspaper about the impacts.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the Senate is about to adjourn for a summer recess, clearly doing so after having moved this morning on an Agriculture supplemental bill that does not truly understand the plight of American farmers and the impacts in my home State of Washington. The impact on Washington State farmers and the impact they have on our State economy and the national economy is clear. There are over 40,000 farmers in our State covering 15 million acres of land. Washington State apples are 50 percent of our Nation's apples, and Washington State is the third largest wheat-producing State in the country. We export about 90 percent of that wheat internationally. Farmers in our State have been struck by a series of disasters this year. They have suffered a drought, they have suffered a destructive storm, and this morning they are left with an Ag supplemental bill that does not do enough for the farmers in my State. In fact, this bill we have passed, compared to the Harkin bill, leaves my State with hundreds of millions of dollars less resources for both wheat and apples. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a document produced by the State of Washington that details the elements and impacts of the drought.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, the article goes on to state that the drought could mean staggering losses of more than $270 million in reduced income from farmers, lost jobs, and less money circulating through our local economy. The most critical stories are emerging from my State, including those of the apple industry. An agricultural assistance bill such as the one we passed that does not support apple growers fails to understand a very important part of our agricultural sector. You heard from many of my colleagues from New York, Michigan, and Maine about the fact that we need to do something to help America's apple growers who are experiencing the worst economic losses in more than 70 years. Currently prices are as low as 40 percent below the cost of production. Between 1995 and 1998, apple growers lost approximately $760 million due to questionable import practices involving such countries as China and Korea, in addition to the stiff export tariffs. Growers like to be self-sufficient and would not ask for help if it did not mean their survival. Many growers in financial crisis are being pushed off their farms. One study has estimated that the numbers of those leaving their farms could be as high as 30 percent. We need to stop this exodus from the family farms by providing farmers this year with the support and money they desperately need. The Harkin bill would have done that. Instead, as the Senator from Iowa stated earlier, with a gun to our head and without the recourse of getting cooperation and support from the President or from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we passed an Ag supplemental bill that will mean hundreds of millions fewer dollars to the State of Washington and to family farmers. We need to do better. Many of my colleagues have talked about the shortcomings of this legislation. So as we prepare for adjournment, as wheat farmers begin their harvest, as apple growers deal with drought and suffer from storm loss, as communities throughout Washington State and the country deal with the economic impacts being felt by the agricultural industry, I hope my colleagues will think hard about these issues and return in September to do more for family farmers and to show our appreciation for that industry. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Connecticut for his fine remarks on election reform, a very important issue, indeed, and one I am sure we will be addressing when we resume after our summer recess.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate for 15 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the National Digital School District Act, a bill that embraces the powerful role technology can have as a tool in educating our nation's children. Just as technology has brought innovation and efficiency to our daily lives and our businesses, technology has already demonstrated its enormous potential to enhance the ways that we can prepare our children to meet the educational demands of the changing economy. Across the country, we have seen how proper uses of technology can transform a conventional curriculum into a multi-media, interactive experience that not only helps children learn more effectively, but does so in a way that is enjoyable and fosters a student's passion for learning. In numerous recent studies, including those done by the Department of Education, the White House Office on Science and Technology and the RAND Corporation, researchers have found that technology has a very positive impact on serving the goals of education in important ways, including: 1. Supporting student performance--technology provides opportunities for acquiring problem-solving skills and methods for learning in innovative and interactive ways. 2. Increased motivation and self-esteem--studies have found that one of the most common effects of technology on students was an increase in the motivation of students who experience education in new and enjoyable ways. 3. Preparing students for the future--as both higher education and the workplace are increasingly becoming infused with technology, technology is a crucial component of student preparation, and; The potential impact of technology on education is no secret. In fact, schools have dramatically increased their focus on putting technology in the classroom. Both the public and private sector have been diligently wiring school buildings and putting computers in many classrooms, making access to computers and the Internet increasingly commonplace. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. The same is true for children, just putting technology into a school does not ensure that teachers know how to use it or children are able to learn from it. Unless technology is properly integrated into curriculum, the students will not realize the benefits of having the access. Without teachers who know how to use computers to teach the kids, the kids will not benefit. In addition to computers and access, we need to assure teacher training and curriculum development. This legislation is a good first step toward fixing this problem, in effect, bridging the technology and teaching divide. To accomplish this goal, our bill takes two tracks, first, the legislation establishes a grant program in which the state and federal government share the responsibility to create model programs to team technology with curriculum and teacher training--to develop comprehensive approaches to using technology in education. Second, to help identify best practices, the legislation will also require a study to evaluate and highlight which of these strategies work and which do not work in bringing technology to the classroom. Schools across the country are being given the tool of technology. Indeed, the total annual investment in education technology is currently almost $5 billion per year. According to a recently released study by NetDay, although 97 percent of teachers have some type of access to computers in their schools, only 32 percent of teachers say that computers are well integrated into their classrooms and curricula. We can do better. Teachers around the country are finding ways to enhance the classroom experience by teaching conventional topics with technological tools. Schools and businesses in my home State of Washington are leaders in these areas. For example, in rural, agricultural Eastern Washington, Diane Peterson wanted to improve her Waterville Elementary 4th and 5th graders' success with math, science, reading, and writing. She found that University of Washington scientists needed data gathered on local vegetation and weather--she put those facts together and came up with a plan. Students were able to use 3-mail and shared web-sites to write, organize and present a useful study to the Western Washington scientists. The students are learning math and science skills through real-world experience, possible only through the use of the Internet. And helping science to boot. Also, administrators in districts around the countries are increasingly finding particular methods and strategies that are crucial to realizing the value of technology. The Seattle Public School District, for example, has undertaken an effort to employ at every school a person who, with expertise in both education and technology, trains and advises teachers in how to use technology to teach different subjects. Teachers now have a resource to guide them as they bring technology into the classroom. The district has found that having a person who can educate teachers and help them make the most of the technology available to them can make the difference between technology as an educational tool or as a waste of money. The Bill and Melinda Gates foundations have been leaders in improving education through the use of technology. For example, in Washington State, the Foundation had created the $45 million ``Teacher Leadership Project,'' a grant program to provide leadership development for 1,000 K-12 teachers a year, over three years. Participants receive in-depth training, as well as hardware and software to create a technology-rich learning environment. Teachers attend workshops and seminars, participate in e-mail discussions, keep records of the experiences, and assist with assessment and evaluation. Clearly, assessment and evaluation are critical to the future application for this program. This program is an excellent model to bring technology into the classroom. These programs show that when used effectively, technology can enhance learning. But to fully employ technology as an educational tool across the country we must develop programs that take into account the real needs for education and that can be scaled for implementation by any school or district. Successful strategies are those that not only install computers, but also integrate these resources in three crucial ways, through: 1. Teacher Training and professional development--We must teach the teachers so they can use technology to teach the children. 2. Curriculum development--Technology isn't helpful unless it is incorporated into lesson plans. 3. Resource allocation--In order to be successful, a program should match the technology needs to the goals of the program. The National Digital School District Act addresses these important elements of technology in education by requiring that local and state agencies incorporate these criteria into their education plans. Through these requirements, the National Digital School District Act will encourage the development of best practices for the use of technology in schools; practices that can be scaled up in states and local districts around the country. Additionally, this legislation will ensure that the Department of Education leads the way in identifying best practices for the use of technology by assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of these strategies. Teachers, administrators, private sector organizations, and non- profit groups are developing innovative approaches in countless classrooms, schools and districts. Too often, however, the programs and strategies are springing up in isolation--without any mechanisms to facilitate the evaluation and sharing of the results of these efforts. My bill will bridge this information gap. Not only will this legislation help provide assistance to schools, districts and states as they begin using technology in the classroom, but this will help ensure that federal monies are spent prudently and effectively. The National Digital School District Act directs the Secretary of Education to complete a comprehensive report after three years to describe what works and what doesn't work--providing guidance to educators and policymakers at the federal, state and local levels. This report will describe the strategies being implemented around the country that best achieve their intended goals. Using this report we will be able to identify which programs work well and could be adapted successfully for use in other school districts. The report need not be exhaustive, but it must be comprehensive--if a program works, we should know about it. We need a clear inventory of successful programs to identify the best practices educators can implement. The National Digital School District Act will succeed in identifying these practices and helping to bridge the gap between the vast potential for technology as an educational tool, and the challenges facing teachers who uses it in the classroom.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise in support of the nomination of Hector Baretto to the position of Administrator for the Small Business Administration. First, I want to take this opportunity to thank the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Chairman Kerry and Ranking Member Bond for working so diligently on issues affecting small businesses. Small businesses, always important to our communities and our economy, have taken new and heightened importance in our changing economy. The position for which Mr. Baretto has been nominated for, Administrator of the Small Business Administration, has probably never had as much significance as it does in the current economy. Small businesses are now, more than ever, a source of the innovation that is critical to the continued growth of the economy. In my state, one of the largest high-tech companies, Microsoft, was a small business not so long ago. As we have watched our unemployment figures drop now for several years, small businesses have been the largest community contributing to job creation. In fact, many of the leading high-tech companies in America were small businesses only years ago--or remain small businesses today. But along with the great successes, there are many small businesses with great ideas that have yet to get a foothold in our economy. These companies, many minority- and woman-owned, need the assistance of the Small Business Administration. I was alarmed when the administration presented its first budget with deep cuts in SBA funding. Fortunately, Senators Kerry and Bond were able to restore much of that money in the Senate Budget Resolution and I would hope that as Administrator, Mr. Baretto would work to forestall any future efforts by others in the administration to impair SBA's ability to fulfill its important mission. The President's budget requested no money for the SBA's new markets venture capital program and the National Veterans' Business Development Corporation just when it is getting started in its efforts to help veterans, particularly service-disabled veterans, who want to start or expand their businesses and develop a plan to become self-sustaining by fiscal year 2005. The President's budget freezes funding for the Women's Business Centers at $12 million and the Women's Business Council at $750,000. The Council is very helpful to the Congress, monitoring and researching the contribution of women business owners and the obstacles they face, including increasing their access to government contracts loans, and venture capital. These programs have been extremely valuable to the small business and entrepreneurial communities. I hope that as Administrator, Mr. Baretto will defend these programs and help the administration understand their significance for veterans, women, and minorities. I think expanding and diversifying the pool of small business owners is one of the most significant areas in which the SBA contributes, and an area in which I believe the Small Business Administration can do more. I congratulate Mr. Baretto and urge Senators to vote to confirm him as Administrator of the Small Business Administration.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to address an issue of extraordinary importance to the State of Washington, the Pacific Northwest, and the entire west coast. That is the role of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission in regulating our Nation's energy markets and righting the wrongs that have been visited upon ratepayers in the West by runaway energy prices over the last year. We are now 22 days into an expedited review process by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, designed to determine refunds for the unjust and unreasonable rates paid by Western consumers. At the urging of my colleagues from the Northwest, Senators Murray, Wyden, Smith, and myself, FERC finally recognized the realities of the energy markets in the West when they allowed Pacific Northwest utilities to participate in these proceedings and the expedited review process. But my main concern is that in the haste of putting the California debacle behind it, FERC will again overlook the Northwest and consumers who have been impacted by as much as 50-percent rate increases. I am afraid my suspicions were borne out last week when the administrative law judge charged with overseeing this refund matter issued his recommendations to FERC, again paying little attention to the Northwest problem. It is now up to FERC to determine what to do with the judge's recommendation. I believe the Commission should not--and cannot--in the interest of fairness ignore the Northwest in its refund calculation. While many of my colleagues are well aware of the toll this crisis has taken on California, we--and FERC--cannot disregard the impact that it has had on Northwest citizens, businesses, and communities of Washington State. Equitable treatment in this refund proceeding requires that the Commission recognize a certain fundamental truth: That Northwest consumers have been harmed, and they have been harmed by unjust and unreasonable prices that have prevailed in all energy markets throughout the West--inside and outside California, and in spot, forward, and long-term power markets. There are differences between how California and Northwest utilities manage their obligations to serve consumers. Thus, FERC should not come up with a one-size-fits-all solution for a refund methodology. The basic litmus test should be this: Did power rates meet the commonsense test of reasonableness? If the answer is no, then the Commission must order refunds. This determination should not depend on whether the utilities bought energy on the spot market or made their purchases under long-term contracts. The Northwest has been hurt by California's dysfunctional marketplace, and yet we now also risk being hurt because we in the Pacific Northwest do not operate the same way as the California ISO, when it comes to the issue of refunds. We run the risk of being penalized twice. Western consumers have been impacted by the havoc unleashed by California's unstable energy markets and the apparent gamesmanship of a few who have taken advantage of this broken power market. This topic is of particular concern to the Northwest because, as the crisis has evolved, FERC has been slow to respond to the situation in California, and slower to respond in the Northwest. In the refund proceeding, focusing solely on California's spot markets would significantly harm the utilities of my State and ignore the residual damage that California has caused in all of the energy markets throughout the West. What are some of those impacts? Make no mistake. The pain inflicted by this crisis has been real on the people of Washington State. Over the last year skyrocketing energy prices have caused retail electricity rates to rise in all corners of my State: 20 percent in Clark County, 30 percent in Cowlitz, Skamania, and Okanogan counties, 35 percent in Snohomish County, and 50 percent in the cities of Tacoma and Seattle. Even as these utilities have passed on rate increases to consumers, some have been forced to issue hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of bonds to cover the cost. Seattle, for example, normally spends $100 million per year on purchasing power. This year the city spent over $450 million to keep the lights on--and that is just in the first 6 months of the year. While the utility in its first 98 years of history issued a total of only about $1 billion in bonds, it is having to issue $700 million in debt this year alone to pay for its purchased power bills. A number of Northwest utilities have even had their bond ratings downgraded as a result of this crisis. Indeed, the economic impacts on Washington have already begun to take root. Energy-intensive industries such as aluminum smelting and pulp and paper industries have been driven to the brink of collapse, and layoffs already number in the tens of thousands. There are innumerable other businesses that are on the brink as well. For example, Georgia-Pacific has shut down its pulp and paper mill in Bellingham, WA, laying off 420 workers. Another pulp and paper mill in Steilacom, WA, has had to idle its workforce due to escalating power prices. Washington's aluminum industry, which provides my State with between 7,000 to 8,000 family-wage jobs, has curtailed a large part of its production anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. And it is unclear whether those companies will ever resume production at their current levels given this agreement to shut down. These companies, which produce a large portion of the Nation's aluminum, have given up more than 75 percent of their power in order to minimize the rate increase for the entire region. Due to drought conditions and the cost of purchasing power for irrigation, many farmers in the State of Washington have also been hurt. They have chosen to forego the planting this summer. Because agriculture is already one of the most stressed industries in Washington, the impacts of the current energy situation are particularly devastating. Many of our irrigators have been paid not to farm based on energy savings compared to the their previous year's usage. When irrigators can't farm, that has ramifications for entire communities and related businesses such as cold storage, food processing, and transportation. So the agricultural impact is being felt broadly in our State. The effect on small businesses have been equally harrowing. At a Small Business Committee field hearing that was held in Seattle by the chairman, Senator Kerry, I heard from the president of a steel foundry based in Tacoma, which has been in operation since 1899--a company that employs over 350 people. In the face of this crisis, this plant, with a very aggressive approach, reduced its power consumption by over 20 percent. At the same time, the foundry has increased its efficiency and will actually produce more steel this year. But despite this extraordinary effort to reducing energy consumption, the company's power bills are 60 percent over what it was the year before, virtually eliminating any profits and already forcing a handful of layoffs. In the words of the company's president, any further rate increase will mean that the foundry will have to close its doors. This crisis has a very human face. The LIHEAP caseload in the State of Washington is expected to grow 50 percent this year. I have heard from many senior citizens who can't afford to light their homes at night and will be making hard choices later this fall and winter about heating their homes and buying food. I have visited children who are worried that their parents, in some of those industries I mentioned, will lose their jobs. And those children are concerned they will then lose their homes when their mothers and fathers do not have the work to pay their bills. Our schools have also had to cut corners. The Central Valley School District near Spokane, for example, has had to divert over $200,000, that would otherwise be used to purchase textbooks, to pay its energy bills. What is more startling is the gravity of these impacts, and the number of Washington residents suffering from this crisis, is going to continue to grow. I say that because the Bonneville Power Administration, which provides Washington with 70 percent of its power, will be forced to raise its rates another 46 percent this October. It is clear that FERC has an obligation to help these people I have just mentioned, and to help the State of Washington overcome the economic impacts caused by the California market and by a serious drought. FERC must not only stabilize our market and ensure fair rates in the future, but must also address past wrongs and the harm that has impacted consumers. FERC took its first serious step in its June 19 price mitigation order. Given the economic casualties in my State, I believe this action was long overdue. But it was a positive first step. The effectiveness of FERC's price mitigation plan will remain of vital concern to all of us from the West. We need to remain mindful of what the effects of this California-focused mechanism on supply in the Northwest, as our region's peak winter heating season approaches. But let me address specifically the issue of refunds and where we are today in the process. Of particular concern to me is the fact that, as part of the June 19 order, FERC established a 15-day settlement conference for participants in California energy markets, and others in the West, to reach agreement on potential refunds for overcharges and settlement of California's unpaid accounts. As has been the case throughout this crisis, the order was initially silent on the issue of relief for the Pacific Northwest. It was only after the intervention of a bipartisan group of Northwest Senators that FERC amended its order clarifying that Northwest parties would also participate in those discussions. But the 15-day settlement window has now closed and no agreement has been reached--for consumers in either Washington State or California. As I have mentioned, the administrative law judge made his recommendation last week on how to proceed. He was mostly silent on the issue of relief for the Pacific Northwest. It should also be noted that, to the extent the recommendations did comment on our concerns, it was not factually correct. While the recommendations said Pacific Northwest parties ``did not have data on what they were owed, nor an amount of refunds due them,'' it is a matter of public record that a group of Northwest utilities--net purchasers in the West's dysfunctional power markets--submitted a claim for $680 million, as well as documentation and a proposed methodology for calculating those refunds. That notwithstanding, this is a silence the Commission itself cannot, in the interest of fairness, sustain. FERC must seek an equitable solution for the Northwest. In order to do that I believe it is critical that FERC recognize some fundamental differences between the Northwest and California energy markets--and that fundamental fairness requires that refunds go to customers in California and the Northwest. First, FERC needs to recognize that most Northwest participants in the California markets are load-serving utilities. These load-serving utilities are responsible for a very small percentage of the power sold into the California market--certainly no more than 4 percent--and they are clearly not the parties that broke the market. Further, many in the Northwest, especially the Bonneville Power Administration, have been partners in helping solve the California problem by keeping the lights on during emergencies, at costs to the Northwest that cannot necessarily easily be quantified--particularly when one takes into account the Northwest's endangered species and salmon issues, and the delicate balance we work hard to achieve. Every time we generate power, it is quite a delicate balance. Unlike power marketers or merchant generators, Northwest utilities operate under a statutory obligation to meet all their customers' electricity needs. Further, our region's power supply is essentially based on hydropower. A full 78 percent of Washington state's generation comes from hydropower. As has been made painfully clear by this year's drought--which has amounted to the second worst year of drought on record in the history of our State--the vagaries of hydroelectric production require that our utilities make other wholesale power purchases to meed load. In keeping with reasonable utility planning practices, these companies buy a portfolio of products of varying duration. This points to a second, fundamental difference between the Northwest and California markets: Whereas California utilities were forced, under the State's restructuring law, to make all of their purchases in a centralized hour-ahead or day-ahead market, we have no such centralized market in the Northwest. While we do have very short-term bilateral markets, our utilities have traditionally only used these to balance the difference between forecasted and actual loads, streamflows, weather conditions, and other similar factors. Unlike the California ISO market, the Northwest utilities rely heavily on ``forward'' or long-term contracts that last for periods varying from a month ahead to a quarter or two or even longer. But these contracts have been closely affected by the skyrocketing spot market prices in California. It is thus absolutely crucial, for the purposes of its refund proceeding, that the FERC recognize that power prices throughout the West--and not just in spot markets, but in these forward contracts as well--are unjust and unreasonable. Washington State's prices have moved in lockstep with the spot market prices. In its June 19 order, the Commission itself commented on this, stating that there is a ``critical interdependence among prices in the ISO's organized spot markets, the prices in the bilateral spot markets in California and the rest of the West, and the prices in forward markets.'' So the Commission itself has recognized the relationship between these prices. Indeed, when one compares forward contract prices in the Northwest with spot market rates both within the region and in California over the last year, they show a correlation of more than 80 percent on a monthly average basis; that is, forward prices in the Northwest have moved in tandem with California's prices, which the Commission has deemed unjust and unreasonable. It is these forward prices that have largely driven the rate increases in the Northwest. It is clear, then, that any FERC refund order that seeks to treat all Western participants fairly, as the Power Act says it must, must recognize the relationship between spot markets and forward markets. Simply put, any refund policy must not disadvantage the utilities in the Northwest because of the contractual mechanism they have used to acquire power. Let me just touch on the case of BPA because I mentioned it earlier. Throughout this crisis, BPA has responded to the California ISO's urgent calls for power supply when the State was teetering on the edge of rolling blackouts. In fact, on three separate occasions, the Department of Energy issued emergency orders directing Bonneville to sell power into the State of California. It should also be noted, however, that California entities have yet to repay BPA for about $100 million of these transactions. As one of these entities has entered into bankruptcy, it remains questionable how the Northwest will ever receive this $100 million repayment. Meanwhile, BPA has at times drawn down its reservoirs, arguably compromising the reliability of Northwest power system to aid California. So while BPA has sold into the California spot market, it has actually been a net purchaser during the crisis, when one takes into account its forward contracts. And when faced with the volatile energy prices throughout the West, Bonneville earlier this year made the difficult decision to pay consumers to curtail their loads rather than to venture into the market. I mentioned various of those efforts earlier in my remarks about the aluminum industry. Bonneville and the Northwest customers it serves have been victims of the power crisis touched off by this experimentation in partial deregulation, which has created this dysfunctional market. In conclusion, it is important that the Commission act fairly and that my State's utilities not be penalized for sales into California when they have been forced to purchase power at a similar unjust and unreasonable rate. It is very important that the Commission work toward a solution that gives the Northwest refunds, just as it is promising to do in California. FERC must work towards a comprehensive settlement that addresses the claims of both California and the Northwest. In order to reach an equitable solution, it must acknowledge the fundamental differences in the two markets. I believe a fair outcome requires FERC to take a few simple steps. First, FERC must recognize an inescapable commonsense conclusion: that all Western power markets have been dysfunctional for quite some time. The Commission's duty under the Federal Power Act is to ensure just and reasonable rates in all markets at all times. I urge the Commission to act in accordance with section 309 of the Power Act in doing this. Second, power prices have been unjust regardless of the type of market which the Northwest operates in. The fact is, we in the Northwest have a different market than California, and FERC simply cannot use the same formula when calculating refunds for our consumers. It must take into account both forward and long-term contracts. Those utilities that can, using this methodology, demonstrate a legitimate complaint should receive refunds. Third, FERC must not leave the Northwest behind. Northwest utilities must be allowed to plead their case during the upcoming evidentiary hearing. Finally, repayments of amounts due to the Northwest for sales into California must be an integral part of any refund calculation. I call on the FERC Commissioners to incorporate these principles into a refund policy for the Northwest. It is indisputable that the Northwest has been harmed. Now it is up to FERC to take the action to mitigate those damages and to repay the consumers in Washington State.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senators Bingaman, Boxer, and Dorgan, to state our strong support for critical energy efficiency programs within the Department of Energy. My colleagues and I have been working with the chairman and ranking member over the last few days to restore and fully fund these important programs. We believe that the proven efficacy of these programs merit allocation of additional funds. The Federal Energy Management Program, or FEMP, uses alternative financing vehicles, technical assistance, and outreach campaigns to make our federal agencies more energy efficient. Although this program uses only a small amount of federal funding, its energy reduction strategies save the U.S. government, and thus American taxpayers, hundreds of millions of dollars a year. This program has proven to be a great investment. The Federal government is the largest user of energy in the United States and FEMP has helped reduce energy use per square foot of floor area in federal buildings by 19 percent since 1985, resulting in cumulative savings of $6 billion since 1985. FEMP has also trained over 13,000 federal energy managers, assisted with the design of over 200 energy saving projects, and helped federal agencies make use of market-based energy saving performance contracts. These are the type of programs we must support, programs that provide a great return for our Federal dollars and keep returning those benefits year after year. These programs also lessen the environmental impact of the federal government, reduce our government's dependence on foreign oil, and leverage private sector resources. I also suggest expanding several successful, community-based building technology assistance programs. These programs provide technical assistance, demonstrations, training, and education to communities to accelerate the use of innovative and cost-effective energy technologies, strategies, and methods. One particularly successful example is the Energy Smart Schools campaign that provides a comprehensive portfolio of energy efficiency technologies, and works directly with national, state, and local organizations that influence school construction and modernization. Let me share with you how Seattle Public Schools used this program to reap the extensive rewards of energy-saving retrofits. Through a collaborative effort involving Seattle City Light, Seattle Public Utilities, Puget Sound Energy, and the Bonneville Power Administration, dozens of Seattle public schools received lighting retrofits, water conservation measures, upgraded energy management systems, and education on how to use energy more efficiently. Combined, these efforts reduced the school system's annual energy bills by a third, saving 15.5 million kilowatts of energy. I urge the Department to commit these additional funds in the Western states that have been severely impacted by the electricity crisis. Because the budget allocation in the Senate is significantly less than the House, the Weatherization Program also has received less funding in the Senate than in the House bill. It is an effective program--for every one dollar spent, three are saved. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I appreciate the budgetary constraints that we must operate within for the Interior and related agency appropriations bill. We appreciate the chairman's assistance in increasing funding levels for these programs. Could the chairman of the Appropriations Committee inform me as to his intention with regard to increasing the funding levels of these key energy conservation programs?

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you for your support. restoration and maintenance of the arlington house

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today after learning of the tragic deaths of four firefighters in the Wenatchee National Forest in Washington state. These courageous firefighters died yesterday battling a wildfire in Okanogan County. A tragedy of this magnitude is felt throughout Washington state, but should also be recognized and mourned by a grateful nation. This is the nation's deadliest wildfire since 1994. On behalf of the citizens of Washington State, I extend my deepest sympathies to the families of the four brave men and women who gave their lives to protect their neighbors. Squad Leader Tom Craven of Ellensburg, Devin Weaver of Yakima, Jessica Johnson of Yakima, and Karen Fitzpatrick of Yakima gave their lives to keep us safe. This tragedy is compounded because these firefighters were so young--the youngest being just 18 years old. We join their families and friends in mourning their loss. As Senator Murray pointed out, this tragedy reminds us that we often take for granted the men and women who routinely put their lives on the line to protect us. Every state in the nation has experienced the loss of people involved in fighting fires. I hope the families and friends of these brave firefighters know that the courage and sacrifice of their loved ones will not be forgotten and that our sympathies reach out to their families. I also want to recognize the hard work of those firefighters who are still fighting; to those who are injured, I also wish them a speedy recovery. The firefighters of the U.S. Forest Service come from all over the country. They have been battling fires for years. This year alone, 300 firefighting personnel are available on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. These firefighters work year after year in service to their country with little recognition. On behalf of the residents of Washington State and the Nation, I thank them for their hard work and their dedication under very trying circumstances. We all remember the sacrifice that each and every one of you have made.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a resolution to commemorate the 72nd Major League Baseball All-Star Game and to congratulate the Seattle Mariners on their extraordinary start to the season. The game of baseball is widely considered America's pastime. Walt Whitman once said: ``I see great things in baseball. It's our game--the American game. It will take our people out-of-doors, fill them with oxygen, give them a larger physical stoicism, tend to relieve us from being a nervous, dyspeptic set, repair these losses, and be a blessing to us.'' Baseball also has been a reflection of our nation's struggles and triumphs. During the Civil War, soldiers played baseball during their free moments, whether in a fort or in a prison camp. In 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt requested that professional baseball continue during the war effort to help maintain our nation's morale, even as baseball stars such as Ted Williams and Bob Feller contributed to the war effort on the front lines as soldiers. During the civil rights movement, Jackie Robinson epitomized the struggle of African Americans as he broke baseball's color barrier and continued to fight prejudice throughout his career. Now today, as our world has become smaller, the game has become larger, uniting fans and attracting star players from around the world. The All-Star game is a showcase of this special sport and of baseball's most talented players, selected by baseball fans around the world and by All-Star Managers Joe Torre and Bobby Valentine. It is also a broader celebration of baseball as fans are treated to not only the All-Star game between the National League and the American League, but other events as well, including a FanFest featuring interactive games and displays, a homerun derby by baseball's greatest sluggers, a game between the top minor league baseball prospects of the American League and National League, and a softball game featuring All-Star game legends and other celebrities. It is an honor and pleasure for the City of Seattle to once again host this celebration. In 1979, Seattle hosted the 50th All-Star game in just the third season for the Seattle Mariners. After two years of planning, Seattle gave baseball fans what is still considered one of the greatest All-Star celebrations in the history of the event. That year, the Mariners were represented by only one All-Star, first baseman Bruce Bochte. A deserving player on a struggling team, Bochte had a pinch-hit, run-scoring single that evening--the first hit and RBI for a Mariners All-Star. This season, as Seattle hosts the 72nd All-Star Game, the Mariners are represented by eight players and Manager Lou Piniella. The eight Mariners players are the most to participate from one team since the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates also had eight players. This collection of talent--and the hard work, discipline, and determination that these players have demonstrated to reach All-Star status--is at the core of one of the best starts in Major League Baseball history. The Mariners have compiled a 63-24 record, the fourth best of all time after 87 games. Importantly though, the team's success has resulted not only from the talents of All-Stars Bret Boone, Mike Cameron, Freddy Garcia, Edgar Martinez, Jeff Nelson, John Olerud, Kazuhiro Sasaki, and Ichiro Suzuki, but the contributions and teamwork of each player and coach. The work of Mariners General Manager Pat Gillick must also be recognized. Mr. Gillick has shrewdly made trades and acquired free agents who have contributed to the improvement of the Mariners both years he has been with the franchise. The result has been a team of remarkable consistency, discipline, and talent. Last year the Mariners finished with a franchise-record 91 victories and this year they are on pace to win over 110 games. Once again, I would like to commemorate the 72nd Major League Baseball All-Star game and the remarkable start by the Seattle Mariners.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of the bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Bipartisan Patient Protection Act. Managed care reform, particularly the enactment of a comprehensive Patients' Bill of Rights, is one of the most important issues currently before either body of the U. S. Congress. After all the debate we have had on the floor in the last two weeks, I believe we are at the cusp of providing true, meaningful protections for every American in every health care plan. Unfortunately, while over 160 million Americans rely on managed care plans for their health insurance, HMOs can still restrict a doctor's best advice based purely on financial costs. The fact is, we know that the great promise of managed care--lower costs and increased quality-- has in all too many cases turned into an acute case of less freedom and greater bureaucracy. I want to tell my colleagues about the Malone family from Everett, Washington. Their son, Ian, was born with brain damage that makes it very difficult for him to swallow, to even cough and gag properly. He cannot eat or breathe without being carefully watched. He's fed through a tube in his stomach since he can't swallow. The doctors at Children's Hospital in Seattle--one of the best pediatric care institutions in the world--said that Ian could leave the Intensive Care Unit but would need 16 hours of home nursing care a day for Ian. And while initially the Malone's health insurance company paid for this care, it decided to cut it off. Ian's father says that ``The insurance company told us to give Ian up for adoption and let the taxpayers step in and pay for his care. They didn't care. It was all about saving money.'' It seems that the week's rhetoric has centered on the idea of business and employers versus patients--as if these two interests are inherently antithetical, rather than complementary. But they are not. In fact, I believe the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act is a balanced approach to protecting patients and protecting the business of managed care. My home State of Washington has been a leader in providing health care to all of its citizens and has enacted strong patient protections at the state level. Under Washington State law, patients have the right to accurate and accessible information about their health insurance; the right to a second opinion; timely access to services by qualified medical personnel; the right to appeal decisions to an independent review board; and the ability to sue providers for damages if they are substantially harmed by a provider's decisions. I believe that States are the laboratories of democracy and I do not take lightly the possibility that any federal legislation would undermine or preempt state law. I spent six years on the Health Care Committee in the State House of Representatives and just this last year Washington passed a comprehensive Patient's Bill of Rights. In issues such as the one before us this week, it is paramount that federal legislation enhance state protections, not undermine them. And that is what this bill does. The McCain-Edwards-Kennedy compromise explicitly preserves strong state patient protection laws that substantially comply with the protections in the Federal bill. This is an extremely important point. The standards for certifying state laws that meet or exceed the Federal minimum standard ensure that only more protective State laws replace the Federal standards. But I find it ironic that opponents of a strong, enforceable, Patients' Bill of Rights have traditionally limited the scope of the patient protections in their managed care reform legislation to those individuals in self-insured plans, which are not regulated by the States, and assert that the States are responsible for the rest. This approach denies Federal protections to millions of Americans-- teachers, police officers, firefighters and nurses who work for State and local governments; most farmers and independent business owners who purchase their own coverage; most workers in small businesses who are covered by small group insurance policies, and millions more who are covered by a health maintenance organization. We need federal protections so that all Americans are guaranteed basic rights. In fact, no state has passed all the protections in the bipartisan McCain-Edwards-Kennedy Patients' Bill of Rights. To fail to enact this bill would mean that neighbors, and sometimes workers in the same company, will have different protections under the law. The scope of this legislation simply ensures that all Americans in all health plans have the same basic level of patient protections. Let me focus for a few minutes on what this bill does. This bill protects a patient's right to hear the full range of treatment options from their doctors, and it prohibits financial incentives to limiting medical care. This bill allows patients to go to the first available emergency room when they are facing an emergency--regardless of whether that particular E.R. is in their managed care network. This bill allows women to go directly to their obstetrician or gynecologist without going through a ``gatekeeper,'' and it allows parents to bring their children directly to pediatricians instead of having to go through primary care physicians. This bill allows patients with life-threatening or serious illnesses, for whom standard treatments are ineffective, to participate in approved clinical trials. This bill has laid out stringent, tough, enforceable internal and external review standards, and we have ensured that a truly independent body has the capability and authority to resolve disputes for cases denying access to medical care. This bill promotes informed decision-making by patients, by requiring health plans and insurance companies to provide details about plan benefits, restrictions and exclusions, and other important information about coverage and rights under the legislation. Finally, the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act holds insurers and HMOs accountable for their acts. Twenty years ago, very few Americans were in managed care plans. Since the early 1990s, however, insured workers' enrollment in traditional fee-for-service plans has dropped from about 50 percent to under 25 percent. The broad shift to managed care has been driven, largely, by cost concerns. But in our need to control health care costs, it is imperative that we do not forget what we are supposed to be doing--providing health care. There will be few issues more important in the 107th Congress than the one we are voting on today. Health care affects people personally, every day of their lives, and we have a real responsibility to ensure that any changes we make put the patient's interests first. That is what this bill does, and I proudly rise in support of the Bipartisan Patient Protection Act.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. CANTWELL. I also ask the support of my colleagues in passing this legislation to make sure our technology dollars at the national level are used efficiently and effectively, that some of the models being established even in the private sector be considered as we move forward on getting the best for education under this amendment. I encourage my colleagues to support it, and again thank Senator Enzi, my staff and Senator Enzi's staff on their bipartisan effort in passing this legislation. I yield the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. I ask unanimous consent to call up previously proposed amendment No. 630, as modified.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a bipartisan amendment that was made possible with the help of my colleague, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Enzi, and I also express my appreciation to Senators Kennedy and Gregg for their help on this amendment. They have done a terrific job of moving this education bill through the process this year. We have all experienced going home and hearing from teachers that too often technology is simply not well integrated into the classrooms. While we spend billions on technology in schools, too often these funds do not have the full potential impact because the technology dollars often are focused just on equipment itself. This bipartisan amendment simply requires that school districts which seek to use Federal technology dollars do so in a way that explicitly details how they are going to integrate teacher training and professional development, curriculum development, and proper system resources. Furthermore, the amendment will ask the Department of Education to report on these strategies to identify the BEST practices on bringing technology and training into the classroom so schools that are successful can be used as a model to scale BEST education practices and technology at the national level. This amendment has been supported by a number of national teaching organizations as well as many of the technology industry, such as AOL- Time Warner, Sun Microsystems, Microsoft, Computer and Communications Industry Alliance, and many others. I ask unanimous consent their letters in support of this amendment be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up----

Ms. CANTWELL. About 7 minutes.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify amendment No. 630.

Ms. CANTWELL. The article says: But Union City did far more than simply buy computers. The school day was reconstructed into longer classes; teachers were given 40 hours of training a year-- And the school district doubled its budget-- and the traditional curriculum of emphasizing rote learning was scrapped so students could work on joint projects such as research reports and inventions. The article further says that the kids are more involved and they are no longer being force fed in the educational system. The result is, the article says, that Union City topped all New Jersey cities on State tests. The number of graduates accepted at top institutions such as Yale University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology has jumped from just 8 of their graduates from Union City in 1997, the last time a class was taught the old-fashioned way, to 63 accepted graduates in 1999. I think it shows the success of our focus on technology ought to be on curriculum development, teacher training, and on integration of the system. This amendment asks that the Department of Education analyze after 3 years the best practices so we can scale the use of these best practices into our educational system in this country. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that embraces the powerful role technology can play as a tool in educating our Nation's children. Before I proceed further, I thank Senator Kennedy for his exceptional work and leadership on this bill, and I thank Senator Enzi for his work in helping me develop this amendment. His leadership in technology issues during his tenure in the Senate has been outstanding, and I look forward to the continued work on these and other important technology issues. Technology has brought innovation and efficiency to our lives through businesses, and now it is time to make sure we make those same achievements in our educational system. Across the country, we have seen the proper uses of technology can transform a curriculum into a multimedia interactive experience that not only helps children learn more effectively but also fosters a student's passion for learning. Numerous recent studies, including some done by the Department of Education, the White House Office of Science and Technology, and the Rand Corporation, have shown that technology serves the goal of education in several important ways: Supporting student performance, increasing motivation and self-esteem, and preparing students for the future. Last fall, a San Francisco-based independent research organization released a study showing that the integrated use of computer technology in schools significantly increases learning. The study focused on the first 3 years of Microsoft's Anytime, Anywhere Learning Program which provides laptops for students and their teachers to integrate technology into the classroom and into their daily classwork. The study showed it improved the students' writing and encouraged collaboration and more involvement with their school classwork. So we understand that the potential of education and technology is no secret. But what we are finding today, as this chart shows, is that much of the investment has been made, in fact, in equipment. The chart shows that unless technology is properly integrated into curriculum, students will not realize the benefits of having access. Without teachers who know how to use computers to teach children, they will not benefit. When teachers are well trained and technology is used effectively to unleash children's imagination and creativity, magical things happen in our educational system. Take, for example, Tonasket, WA, where a teacher, Larry Alexander, combined computer technology and a 500-tree apple orchard to teach his fifth grade class about science, math, and technology. The kids studied a range of topics, including cell growth, life cycles, geometry, economics, and hands-on learning experiences, literally becoming the most favorite program in the school. What the Cantwell-Enzi amendment says is that in addition to computers and access, we need to assure teacher training and curriculum development. The Cantwell-Enzi amendment takes the first step in bridging the technology and teaching divide. The amendment says the technology block grant program for State and local agencies should be amended so that instead of just putting dollars into technology under the title II program, States applying should integrate their system resources with teacher training and professional development and curriculum development, thereby assuring a focus on teacher training and curriculum development and not just on equipment. There are many examples of success to which this kind of legislation can lead, but I want to give one example from the State of New Jersey where a neighborhood of Cuban citizens and a school in Union City have made great success. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record an article that appeared in Business Week in the last year on this subject.

Ms. CANTWELL. I will call up amendment No. 630, as modified.