Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I support efforts to provide hard- working Washingtonians and all Americans with tax relief such as eliminating the marriage penalty, making college tuition tax deductible, providing estate tax relief, and assisting workers in saving for their retirement. That's why I voted for the amendment offered by Senator Daschle that would have provided roughly $900 billion in tax relief, including immediate $300 refund checks for all American taxpayers, given all income taxpayers a tax cut by creating a new ten percent income tax bracket, provided marriage penalty relief right away, as opposed to years from now as in the conference report, wiped out the estate tax for the vast majority of taxable estates, established a permanent research and development tax credit to stimulate research and innovation, provided a deduction for college tuition, enhanced incentives for retirement savings, and created a package of energy conservation and efficiency tax incentives, among other important provisions. This amendment also made sure that Social Security and Medicare are protected and reserved sufficient funds to enact a Medicare prescription drug benefit. Unfortunately, that amendment failed and instead the Senate today considered, and passed, a $1.5 trillion tax cut. When you take away all the gimmicks, some estimate $1.9 trillion. This cost explodes to over $2 trillion when you add interest costs and exceeds $4.3 trillion in its second ten years. I believe that the bill we have passed today is short-sighted and fiscally irresponsible. Comprehensive tax relief must be measured against the need to maintain fiscal discipline, and stimulate economic growth through continued federal investment in education and job training, as well as giving relief to citizens in times of surplus. The conference report passed today fails this test. The tax cut is based on the promise of budget projections for the next ten years--projections that are notoriously inaccurate. Ten years is just about the worst planning horizon possible--too long for accuracy, too short for completeness. Moreover, these tax cuts are premised on a surplus that may or may not appear. Budget projections are notoriously inaccurate and, therefore, highly likely to be wrong, especially when projected out ten years. Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says its surplus estimate for 2001 could be off in one direction or the other by $52 billion. By 2006, this figure could be off by $412 billion. It is very likely that we will only be able to afford this tax cut by raiding the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We need to invest in our nation's economic future by making a commitment to research and development to maintain our status as a global leader. Even though the Senate included a permanent extension of the research and development tax credit in its version of the bill, that provision was dropped in conference. That was a mistake. We need to do more, not less, in these times of economic uncertainty to stimulate investment and spur our economy forward. The country is at a critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities: our choices are maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in the nation's future education and health care needs, or cutting the very services used daily by our citizens. I am afraid that today we have gone down the wrong path. Our approach should be more balanced. We should provide tax relief to all Americans but retain our ability to invest in our citizens education and pay down the debt. This will best help continue and enhance our long-term economic strength.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, one reason I made campaign finance reform a centerpiece of my campaign and joined by colleagues Senators McCain and Feingold in working hard to pass campaign finance legislation, is because our current campaign finance system contributes to Americans' growing cynicism about government. And who can blame them for being cynical and believing that government really does not represent their interests, when procedural maneuvering causes a bipartisan bill passed by a wide majority to fail to be transmitted from the Senate to the House? The McCain-Feingold bill passed this body with 59 votes. Similar legislation has twice passed the House with 252 votes. The majority of both bodies clearly support campaign finance reform, and so do a majority of the American people. Yet leaders in both Houses are apparently determined to use every tool at their disposal to force this broadly supported bill into a divisive conference committee composed of the most vocal opponents of reform. The day we passed this bill in the Senate, I spoke on the floor about what an amazing feeling it was to have accomplished one of my primary legislative goals within 90 days of arriving in the Senate. While I never thought that day would be the end of the battle to pass this bill, I must admit that I certainly did not expect to be back on this floor because the bill, despite its comfortable margin of passage six weeks ago, continues to gather dust here in the Senate because the Republican leadership cannot reconcile itself to the most significant campaign finance reform in a quarter century. In an information age, we owe our citizens a government free of special interest influence. Not a system of expedient, special-interest based, decision making, and not a system that engages in byzantine maneuvering to delay and thwart the will of the majority. I hope that the leadership of both the House and the Senate will stop attempting to devise new ways to stonewall this bill and allow the Senate-passed version of this legislation to be debated and voted on in the House without further delay.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from my home State for yielding me time on this amendment. I applaud Senator Murray for her consistent and passionate support for education throughout her political career. Her advocacy for education has deep roots dating back to her early experience as a legislator working for more funding for schools in her own special experience in volunteering and schoolteaching children in the Shoreline area. This amendment is very important for the reasons some of my colleagues have said. It will provide the type of flexibility our school systems need. It is something that has been proven to work, and this is a program that works. Over the last 2 years, when we say a program has worked, we can show success. Thanks to this program, 1.7 million children across the country and over 23,000 schools are benefiting from smaller class size, primarily in the early grades when children most need personal attention from their teachers. As we have heard from other speakers, smaller class size not only has demonstrated an impact on increasing educational performance but also has helped to limit disciplinary problems, and, importantly, small class size has helped encourage greater parental participation in their children's education. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation that will lead to better student achievement, fewer discipline problems, more individual attention, better parent-teacher communication, and dramatic results for poor and minority students. This program does provide flexibility. Up to 25 percent of these funds can be used for other things. This is a program we cannot afford to cut but we need to continue because it is working. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, research and development has been a fundamental driver of the growth of our economy. It is critical that we continue significant investment in R&D and improve commercialization of the research undertaken at our non-profit institutions. I thank the Small Business Committee ranking member John Kerry and Chairman Christopher Bond for taking a leadership role in reauthorizing the Small Business Technology Transfer program. The program is a companion to the very successful Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program which funds R&D projects undertaken by small businesses. Under the STTR program, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation must set-aside .15 percent of their research dollars for award to small high technology firms that partner with non-profit research institutions. The STTR program is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2001. The Kerry-Bond bill, entitled the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001, extends the program until 2010. In addition to extending the STTR program it gradually increases the percentage of Federal R&D funding going to the program from .15 percent to .5 percent over 9 years. There is also a provision to encourage agencies to increase outreach to small business and universities to promote the STTR Program. Many of our most successful businesses in the changing economy were only recently small businesses. Going back only 25 years, one of my State's largest employers, Microsoft, was a small business. Even today, many of the innovators driving the rapid industrial evolution work in small businesses. But the risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts can be beyond the means of many of these businesses. On the other side of the equation, the commercial value of non-profit research often remains unrealized because there are not adequate opportunities to bring researchers together with those who could best make the research into a marketable product. This program fills a very important need by bringing together the capabilities of our non-profit research institutions with the entrepreneurial spirit of our small businesses. The program holds great promise as one way to meet the scientific and technological challenges of our changing economy. And this program has already been successful throughout the United States. In my state alone over the past 5 years, 52 grants have been awarded for work in biotechnology, medicine, fluid mechanics, chemistry, electronics and computer technologies. I am very pleased to be able to lend my support to this program and look forward to this bill moving rapidly into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, research and development has been a fundamental driver of the growth of our economy. It is critical that we continue significant investment in R&D and improve commercialization of the research undertaken at our non-profit institutions. I thank the Small Business Committee ranking member John Kerry and Chairman Christopher Bond for taking a leadership role in reauthorizing the Small Business Technology Transfer program. The program is a companion to the very successful Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program which funds R&D projects undertaken by small businesses. Under the STTR program, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and Health and Human Services, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation must set-aside .15 percent of their research dollars for award to small high technology firms that partner with non-profit research institutions. The STTR program is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2001. The Kerry-Bond bill, entitled the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001, extends the program until 2010. In addition to extending the STTR program it gradually increases the percentage of Federal R&D funding going to the program from .15 percent to .5 percent over 9 years. There is also a provision to encourage agencies to increase outreach to small business and universities to promote the STTR Program. Many of our most successful businesses in the changing economy were only recently small businesses. Going back only 25 years, one of my State's largest employers, Microsoft, was a small business. Even today, many of the innovators driving the rapid industrial evolution work in small businesses. But the risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts can be beyond the means of many of these businesses. On the other side of the equation, the commercial value of non-profit research often remains unrealized because there are not adequate opportunities to bring researchers together with those who could best make the research into a marketable product. This program fills a very important need by bringing together the capabilities of our non-profit research institutions with the entrepreneurial spirit of our small businesses. The program holds great promise as one way to meet the scientific and technological challenges of our changing economy. And this program has already been successful throughout the United States. In my state alone over the past 5 years, 52 grants have been awarded for work in biotechnology, medicine, fluid mechanics, chemistry, electronics and computer technologies. I am very pleased to be able to lend my support to this program and look forward to this bill moving rapidly into law.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the budget before us and to outline a few points that I believe need to be considered while we debate our national budget priorities. There is no doubt that the focus of much of this week has been on the perceived need for, and the size of, a tax cut. I support efforts to provide hard-working families in my home state of Washington, and across the country, with tax relief. I expect Congress to take up legislation to eliminate the marriage penalty, provide estate tax relief, make college tuition tax deductible, and assist workers in saving for their retirement. In addition, I believe that comprehensive tax reform proposals must expand the Dependent Care Tax Credit to help families provide care for their children and expand the Earned Income Tax Credit to make it work better for more hard-working families. However, I am concerned that we balance our efforts to cut taxes with our nation's fiscal and policy responsibilities, and our obligation not to increase our national debt level. Comprehensive tax relief must be measured against the need to maintain fiscal discipline, and stimulate economic growth through continued federal investment in education, job training and infrastructure, while also protecting the environment. We also 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. And, it is critical that we meet the needs of the nation's elderly and enact a meaningful prescription drug benefit for Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, we must realize that much of the debate on the shape and size of tax cuts is dependent on the reliability of surplus projections that may or may not materialize. These are the numbers at issue this week: The projected unified surplus over the next ten years is supposed to be $5.6 trillion. But what we need to be discussing is not this amount--but the amount of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus. And when we take both of those trust funds off the budget line, we are left with $2.7 trillion over ten years with which to work. It is critical that the funding levels in our budget guarantee that Americans have access to needed health care. We also need to invest in our children's education by hiring more teachers, increasing teacher pay, providing enhanced training opportunities, and modernizing our educational system. And, we need to commit to programs that keep our citizens safe, and our environment clean. We seem to be tripping over ourselves right now to spend a surplus-- either on tax cuts or on increased discretionary spending--that, frankly, we are uncertain will even appear. As we all know, projections are notoriously inaccurate and, therefore, highly likely to be wrong even if they are only for the upcoming year. Based on its track record, the Congressional Budget Office says its surplus estimate for 2001 could be off in one direction or the other by $52 billion. By 2006, this figure could be off by $412 billion. Remember that last year CBO projected that the ten-year surplus would be $3.2 trillion, $2.4 trillion less than the projection it released this past January. This means that in just one year the surplus estimate has increased by 75 percent. In fact, CBO admits that it is most uncertain about projections for the years it forecasts the largest surpluses. CBO makes clear that $3.6 trillion of the $5.6 trillion unified surplus is open to question. Besides debating surpluses that may or may not materialize, this budget process is the first step in outlining our nation's fiscal priorities for the upcoming year. However, we must not forget that in addition to figuring ways to fund our political priorities, it is our duty to focus on meeting our national responsibilities. And this is where my concern rests with the President's budget. I believe that Congress can enact reasonable and responsible tax relief while fulfilling our nation's responsibilities. But it seems that the President is funding a $2.0 trillion tax cut at the expense of other programs. A tax cut this large would use 81 percent of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus over the next 10 years, leaving the President and Congress $527 billion, or just 20 percent of the on-budget surpluses to address critical priorities such as additional debt reduction, expanding educational opportunities, providing a prescription drug benefit, keeping our environment safe, and ensuring a strong national defense. In reviewing the President's Budget Blueprint, I am concerned that his proposals shortchange important needs that Americans depend upon. I find it remarkable, for example, that the President proposes to cut funding to the Energy Department by almost one billion dollars--in the midst of an energy crisis the likes of which our country hasn't seen in years, if ever. I am particularly concerned that such a cut at the Department of Energy would be taken out of nuclear weapons facilities, particularly the Hanford Reservation in Washington State. This move would break the moral contract between the United States government and the people of Washington State--the moral obligation to protect the people from the hazards of nuclear waste. The Hanford clean-up is an ongoing federal responsibility and a timely clean-up is essential to the quality of our water and environment, as well as our public safety. To fall behind in the clean-up because of ill-advised funding cuts is an unacceptable risk. This is why I joined with Senator Crapo to introduce an amendment, adopted last night by voice vote, to ensure that the Atomic Energy Defense Account is increased by $1 billion in fiscal year 2002 for just this purpose. I am also concerned about the President's proposed budget for the Department of Health and Human Services. Although the President does increase funding for the DHHS by $2.8 billion, I see that he is increasing the National Institutes of Health by just that amount. If NIH is getting a $2.8 billion increase in the upcoming fiscal year, while its parent agency is only getting that amount as an overall increase, something else is going to be cut, or level funded. Are the cuts going to come from the Child Care Development Block Grant, funding to investigate child abuse and neglect, or services for our elderly? The President proposes only $153 billion over 10 years to provide a low-income prescription drug benefit and finance overall Medicare reform. This is completely inadequate considering that over one-third of our nation's elderly lack coverage for their prescription drug needs, that the average senior spends more that $1,100 on medications every year, and despite the fact that prescription drugs are today's fastest growing segment of health care. On Wednesday, the Senate adopted an amendment to increase the available funding for a new prescription drug benefit by up to $300 billion over 10 years. However, I think it is important to point out that this additional funding is coming from money already earmarked for the Medicare program, and from the broad cuts proposed by the President in other areas. While I have the floor I want to talk about two very specific cuts that the President has proposed. Since 1997, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has spent $107 million to help communities to prepare for and mitigate the potentially calamitous consequences of natural disasters. This funding--Project Impact--helps communities plan and implement preventive measures in order to prevent large-scale destruction of property and human life. Yet, when the President released his budget he proposed canceling Project Impact because ``it has not proven effective.'' Well, I can tell you that the very same morning the President released his budget, my State was hit with a 6.8 earthquake, and, though there was extensive structural damage throughout the region, there were no deaths. And there is no doubt in anyone's mind, especially mine, that one of the main reasons this powerful quake did relatively little damage was because of the millions of dollars my state and our local communities have put into retrofitting buildings and preparing for such an event, dollars that were leveraged by Project Impact. For example, inspectors at Stevens elementary school in the Seattle school district following the earthquake revealed that a 300- gallon water tank directly above a classroom had broken free of its cables. The inspectors concluded that if it were not for a Project Impact retrofit project, the tank could have caused serious, potentially fatal injuries to children in the classroom, as well as significant property damage. Mr. President, as I toured the communities in my state affected by the earthquake and spoke with local officials, I heard other examples, like this story of Stevens Elementary, that prove the effectiveness of the Project Impact program. By cutting funds for this vital program, we would be depriving cities throughout our country an opportunity to mitigate and possibly avert the potentially catastrophic consequences of natural disaster. I am also concerned about the massive cuts proposed for the U.S. Export-Import Bank and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. These two agencies are critical to maintaining U.S. competitiveness in the international economy through assistance programs that effectively increase U.S. exports and provides jobs to American workers. Although Ex-Im represents a minuscule fraction of the Federal budget, it provided $15 billion in export sales last year. The President's proposed 25 percent cut in Ex-Im bank would be a terrible mistake that could eliminate up to $4 billion in U.S. export sales. And OPIC, which over the past thirty years has generated $63.6 billion in U.S. exports and nearly 250,000 American jobs, ultimately operates at no net cost to U.S. taxpayers. Indeed, it actually returns money to the U.S. treasury and provides valuable assistance to U.S. companies seeking to invest and expand their operations abroad. The support and funding of Ex-Im Bank and OPIC is a highly efficient way to increase U.S. competitiveness, especially for smaller companies exporting to higher-risk markets. The proposed cuts could be devastating to American companies and undermine our efforts to compete in the international economy. Mr. President, these programs should be de-politicized and their efforts to support U.S. exporters globally should be backed solidly by this chamber. I know there are some in the Senate who support the President's proposed $2.0 trillion tax cut as a means for stimulating the economy. But this proposal would do little toward this end. Ninety-five percent of the tax cuts in the President's plan occur after 2003. By the time the tax cut takes full effect, the economy will have changed dramatically. These back-loaded tax cuts would do little to boost families' spending power immediately, and therefore do little to spur the economy in the months ahead. And in fact, even the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, has said tax initiatives historically have proved difficult to implement in a time frame in which recessions have developed and ended. This tax cut doesn't even go proportionally to every American. Forty- three percent of the benefits of the President's tax plan are targeted to the wealthiest one percent of families--those with an average annual income over $915,000. Surprisingly, 25 percent of Washington's working families and almost 400,000 of the children in Washington State would not get any benefit from the Bush tax plan. Unfortunately, while relying on surpluses that may or may not appear, and funding a tax cut that goes disproportionately to the wealthiest families and is not interested in areas that will be stimulated in long-term growth, the President's budget eliminates funding to modernize aging schools, cuts maternal and child health programs, eliminates grants to hospitals and community health centers that serve uninsured and under-insured people, and cuts job training and employment services. Responsible budgeting is a give-and-take. The country is at a critical juncture in setting our fiscal priorities: our choices are maintaining our fiscal discipline and investing in long-term growth, the nation's future education, job training and health care needs, or cutting the very services used daily by our citizens. I believe our budget must fund these critical priorities as well as allow for responsible tax relief. Unfortunately, however, the budget before us today does not do this.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, rarely in life--and even more rarely in politics--can you say after fewer than 90 days in a new job that you are able to see one of your primary goals accomplished. My hat is off to Senators McCain and Feingold for their many years of working on this legislation. I ran for the Senate because I wanted to see meaningful campaign finance reform, to reduce the influence of special interests in our political process, and to amplify the voices of individual ordinary citizens. Final passage of McCain-Feingold will be a dream come true for me and a major first step. That is what is most significant about this reform--the first reform we have really had in almost a quarter century. Watching my colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, and also Senators Levin, Thompson, Snowe, Schumer, Dodd, and Wellstone, bring such force of will to ensuring that this bill passed. And that it not only emerged from the amendment process, but that it was improved in that process. Finally, we will be able to slow the virtual arms race that campaign fundraising has become. I thank the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, during yesterday's campaign finance debate, I referred to a number of businesses that support a campaign finance reform proposal. I meant to say that top executives or chief executive officers of those businesses support the reform proposal.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I will be short. I am in support of my colleagues and in support of the Kerry-Biden- Wellstone-Cantwell amendment. I want to make three points today about this amendment. First, as you have heard earlier in the debate, it is an addition to McCain-Feingold. We are trying to ban soft money, limit out of control issue ads, and increase disclosure on independent expenditures. But we also want to give candidates the opportunity to try a system that will free them, their time and their energy, to focus on the issues of the people. Second, counter to some of the things that have been said on the floor today, this is a system that is supported by whom? Not just a few Members of the Senate; it is supported by business. You have heard some of the CEO's and officials of the businesses that are part of this Committee for Economic Development, the CED. Why are they supporting such an amendment? Because they understand the world around us is changing, that they live in an information age, and that as they make better decisions, with more information and a more- informed public, they would like to see a better decision making process in the Senate. Those businesses that have joined this effort to try to reform our political system, and to have a better decision making process, include Nortel, State Farm, Bear Stearns, the Frank Russell Company, the Vista Corporation of Spokane, Allied Signal, GTE, Dow Chemical--a variety of people who are not just a bunch of Members of the Senate. This is a movement grabbing hold in businesses across America because they know our decisionmaking process is flawed. And this will only grow if this amendment is defeated, and we will see this organization and its supporters back again. The third point that I would like to make is that this is in the best interest of the taxpayers. Do not be fooled. The discussion has been that if you vote for public financing, that is a vote for the public's paying for this process. That somehow it is going to cost them in their pocketbook. We have heard a lot about the Presidential system and the checkoff. But I would ask you to think for a minute, how much is this system costing us when we do not get a prescription drug bill? How much does it cost senior citizens who live on a fixed income, who have to pay thousands of dollars a year for prescription drugs? Because we have been smart enough to figure out the new technologies for new drug therapies--smart enough to figure that out in a new information age-- but not smart enough to make prescription drugs affordable. Why is that? Because our campaign system does not reward that kind of thinking. It rewards a very short-term decision making process that does not discuss the fact that prescription drugs have become 30 percent of our overall health care costs, not 5 percent as they were 10 or 15 years ago. That is what is wrong with the decision making process. The fact that we do not have a Patients' Bill of Rights, the fact that we do not spend the time and energy debating a real Patients' Bill of Rights and getting that issue before the Congress in a more aggressive way, and coming to terms and bringing the amendments and alternatives to the floor. That failure costs citizens of our country real personal and great hardships. This issue of whether it involves the public, I can tell you, it is costing us by not reforming our system. What this amendment does today is to try to curb the amount of spending in our political campaigns and set limits. And it does so in a very reasonable way, while at the same time giving people the opportunity to get their message out and to participate in the system as they so wish. I have learned a lot in the last weeks about how deep the cynicism in Washington is when it comes to discussing campaign finance reform. I am deeply committed to overcoming that cynicism and getting a whole generation of young people to take up this torch and change this system as opposed to thinking that government today is not as efficient in dealing with its issues. But until we craft a campaign system with a shorter, more intensive campaign period, funded with finite and equal resources available to candidates, we will not govern well. Instead, the American public will be subject to the kind of campaigning, the kind of special interest ads deluging them in their living rooms with the discussions, not by the candidates, but by these interest groups of what your choices in America should be. I am saying, follow the money back to the citizens of this country. Not until we have freed candidates from the time and energy drained from dialing for dollars will we improve the political discourse, play down the dominance of polls, and render the attack-driven, negative 30- second spots ineffective. I think that day will come. I hate to wait until we have Internet voting, and an information age where citizens will look at all this information and find out exactly, in great detail, what their Senators and Members have been working on. I hope we can get it done sooner than that. I commend Senator Kerry and the other sponsors--Senators Biden and Wellstone for their long-term vision on this issue because it is a vision that is headed in the right direction and it has articulated a better vision for campaign finance reform. This amendment would make a real difference in how campaigns in this country are conducted. I hope, as the CED and Members join in this effort, we can reach a bipartisan consensus to take a step forward in curbing the spending and improving the participation in our campaign system in America. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden and Senator Collins for offering this amendment that I think truly improves the McCain-Feingold bill. In the 2000 election, Seattle and Tacoma were the second and third largest markets for political advertising. The Seattle Post Intelligencer noted earlier this week that campaign ads ``rained down on--or bludgeoned, according to some--viewers throughout the late summer and fall. And this wasn't an intermittent, drip torture kind of rain that Seattle residents know so well. It was a deluge, a constant unavoidable torrent, stretching across three solid months.'' With this constant torrent of negative advertising, it is no wonder that voting among 18 to 24 year olds has dropped from 50% to only 32%-- a much steeper decline than overall turnout. Part of the reason for this disaffection with voting and with politics is undoubtedly due to negative attack advertising. This amendment makes candidates accountable for those ads. By requiring a picture and a readable statement that the candidate approved the ad, it would certainly make candidates think twice before running negative ads. By requiring candidates to take responsibility, the amendment also helps the viewer. It lets the viewer know who is paying for those ads, not just text that they have to run up close to the screen to see. It gives the viewer some of the information that they need as a voter to make a fully informed decision about the candidates. Studies by the Annenberg Center for Communications have found that advertising that includes a personal appearance by the candidate is more accurate, less negative, and is received more positively by voters. This amendment also only deals with ads paid for by candidates. It does not address the problem of out of control issue ads. But one of the things that will happen as a result of this amendment is that there will be a clear contrast created between ads sponsored by candidates and issue ads that are outside the candidates own control This amendment is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to support it and I thank my colleagues for offering it today. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform legislation and the Wellstone amendment. I ran for the U.S. Senate because I believe it is time for us to reform our political system and bring it into the 21st century. At a time where citizens are more empowered than ever with information, where access to technology and communications tools makes it possible for citizens to track and understand on a daily basis our legislative progress, and where citizens understand exactly the tug and pull of the legislative process, that is, who is getting tugged and who is getting pulled. It is time to respond with a political system that is more inclusive in the decision process. That meets the best long term needs of our citizens, instead of a political system of financing campaigns that rewards short-term expedient decisionmaking. But before I go on about the Wellstone amendment that I rise to support, I want to thank the authors of the bill, Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold, for the commitment, determination, courage and perseverance that they have demonstrated on this issue. Campaign finance reform has few friends. It has many enemies. It suffers from a public that simply believes that we can not reform ourselves or this system. John McCain and Russ Feingold, at great personal expense, have championed this cause for many years and I am proud to join them in the heat of this battle. I rise today in support of the Wellstone amendment that I am cosponsoring along with Senators Corzine and Kerry because I believe it will truly start us down the road of progress. Progress in allowing clean money and clean money efforts to finance campaigns. There is almost a grassroots effort popping up in many States such as Maine, Vermont, Arizona, and Massachusetts, and hopefully with this amendment, in many more States across our country. The clean money effort allows us to put our political system where it belongs--back in the hands of the public, making it more accountable for the people we represent. This is the political reform that our country so badly needs. The money we raise from special interests plays a role in politics. It plays a role in setting the terms of the debate. It plays a role in what issues get placed at the top of the legislative agenda. And, most importantly, it keeps the focus in the wrong place. Elizabeth Drew, wrote a book called ``Whatever It Takes,'' that chronicled some of the way business and the Congress operate. Paraphrasing her remarks, some of the interest groups oppose legislation because it is the camel's nose under the tent. It is something they can stop, and so they do. We need a political decision making process in Congress in an information age where people are brought together, and not just met with because we agree with them. Our failure to act to reduce the amount of money in politics is feeding the skepticism and cynicism about politics and government among our citizens, and particularly our youth. At a time when we are not far from Internet voting, we ought to have a system of financing campaigns that encourages our citizens to be more involved. Our citizens believe the current campaign finance system prevents us from acting in their interest. We have been through a technology revolution in this country, and we have to have a governing system, and a campaign system that will keep pace with it. I was reminded in this last cycle--going around the State of Washington, I met a constituent who wanted to tell me about a piece of legislation. They turned around to their desktop and printed off the bill that was being considered, circled the sections of the bill they were most interested in, and said: Now tell me why we can't get this passed by the U.S. Senate. I didn't have to answer this person. They knew very well why it was not getting addressed in the Senate. And that is why we need to change our system. I welcome Senator Wellstone's amendment and his recognition that States can be leaders in this area. I hope my colleagues embrace the spirit of this amendment and recognize it for what it is--a great opportunity to watch, to see, and to learn from those experiments that are happening at the State level. As Senator Wellstone said, States are great laboratories. By letting States that are interested in doing so set up public funding systems for their Federal candidates, we will be providing ourselves with valuable research on how we can level the playing field and get the money out of politics. Think about that: The time that Members spend raising money instead spent listening to the voters in their States. We have already learned from the clean money election systems in Maine that candidates taking part in that voluntary system have had the following things say: It was easier to recruit candidates to run for office. It is what the people want. I will only have about half the money I raised last time but much more time to talk to the people. We have learned that voluntary limits can work. In his Senate race in 1996, Senator John Kerry and his opponent, then-Governor Bill Weld, agreed to a voluntary spending limit, and the result was a campaign waged largely on the issues. Senator Kerry proved there are incentives for both sides to improve the political discourse. In Arizona, 16 candidates were elected under the clean money system, including an upset victory over the former speaker of the State senate. And the challenger spent only one-quarter of the money that his opponent took. In Maine, 49 percent of the State senate candidates won their seats while participating in the clean money program. Overall, States implementing public financing have seen more candidates run, more contested primaries, more women running for office, and, most importantly, it is proving that good candidates can run winning campaigns and participate in a system that limits spending. The only way we have to truly level the playing field, both between candidates and parties of opposing ideologies, and more importantly, between new candidates and incumbents, is to commit the resources to the process of getting people elected. Not until we create a campaign system with a shorter and more intensive campaign period--something I think the public would truly applaud--funded with finite and equal resources available to all candidates, will we be able to really listen carefully to what the people want. Not until then will we be able to free candidates from the time, and the energy drain that is needed for dialing for dollars. Not until then will we be able to improve the quality of political discourse, to play down the dominance of polls, to render tax-driven negative ads ineffective, and to remove the appearance that political decisionmaking is not based on principle but on the dependence on funds. We can't in an information age and a technology age be smart enough to figure out how to make prescription drugs and new therapies improve the quality of life and health care and yet not even have the debate to make prescription drugs more affordable. Why is that? Because it, too, has gotten clogged in this debate and campaign finance reform. Senator Wellstone's amendment removes the roadblock to exploring new options for getting people elected in a new information age. I support the right of States to experiment with new ideas to help level the playing field and to improve our election process and our campaign system. Thank you, Mr. President.

Ms. CANTWELL. Yes.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001, which will help low-income residents cope with high energy costs brought on by the crisis in California. I thank Senator Bingaman and others on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for their leadership in preparing this valuable legislation. The current crisis in energy supply and costs is a crucial and immediate problem for the people of Washington state. I am working on several fronts to help alleviate these effects. The Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001 authorizes increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The program is a lifeline to many of our most vulnerable people, providing direct assistance to eligible households to pay for home energy. Because of the energy crisis, applications for LIHEAP assistance in Washington state have increased by more than 50 percent this year. We need to bolster the program, or it will fall short at a time when low- income people need it the most. This bill also authorizes increased funding for the Weatherization Program that provides insulation for Washington state homes, educates families on energy conservation, tests furnaces and ovens for safety and efficiency, and makes homes safer and healthier places to live. An average household saves 20 percent in fuel and energy costs every year as a result of participating in the Weatherization program. In these times of soaring energy costs, those savings are especially important. That is why this bill authorizes increased funding and raises the eligibility to 200 percent of the poverty level. The bill requires Federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities to increase efficiency of energy and water use and installation of renewable energy projects at federal facilities. It also requires that the evaluation period be followed by implementation of energy and water savings within the 180 days. Energy Savings Performance Contract usage is enhanced by this bill. These are innovative financing methods that leverage private sector investment and expertise to accomplish energy savings and cost savings in federal facilities. The bill amends the Federal Energy Management Program to include savings realized from operation and maintenance efficiencies. This bill also authorizes a total of $75 million for state energy conservation. This is for energy efficiency and emergency planning at the state level. The bill also clarifies the definition of energy savings to include water conservation, excluding Federal hydroelectric facilities. We are going to push for the funding of this bill to be appropriated through a special supplemental appropriation for 2001, adding $1 billion to base funding for LIHEAP, $152 million for weatherization, and $37 million for state energy conservation grants. We will also attempt to get forward funding for LIHEAP for 2002. I will be working with the Washington State delegation, Senator Bingaman, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill and to push for funding as soon as possible. The energy crisis will not be resolved easily, but we can and should make this investment a part of our overall response to this issue. I urge my colleagues to move quickly on this legislation, and I hope that the President will make LIHEAP a priority in his upcoming budget.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that I am cosponsoring the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001, which was introduced by Senator Murray today. This bill will authorize increases in the funding levels for agricultural market access and development programs in 2001 and 2002. These programs provide matching funds to assure aggressive marketing of our agricultural products in the international markets. U.S. exports of high-value and consumer-oriented agricultural products have increased steadily in recent years but are facing stiff competition from foreign sources. In 1998 foreign competitors outspent the U.S. by nearly 4 to 1 on export promotion activities. The Market Access Program is a cost-sharing approach to help U.S. farmers and growers close this funding gap. Program funds are used to generically support important Washington agricultural products. Washington State depends on agriculture to provide jobs, particularly in Eastern Washington which has been left out of the prosperity of the Puget Sound region. Apple growers in the Yakima valley must have new markets if their businesses are to survive and prosper. Eastern Washington needs these jobs and we need this program. Export markets provide some of the best economic support to the agricultural community. Agricultural products are an important part of the dynamic market mix that makes Washington a thriving, productive economic area. The matching funding of the Market Access Program helps to provide support and encouragement for the farmers and growers so important to Washington State and the Northwest. I thank Senator Murray for the leadership she has shown in promoting and protecting our agricultural interests. I look forward to continuing close cooperation with Senator Murray, other members of the Washington State delegation, as well as State and local leaders to support our valued agricultural interests.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor the Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001, which will help low-income residents cope with high energy costs brought on by the crisis in California. I thank Senator Bingaman and others on the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for their leadership in preparing this valuable legislation. The current crisis in energy supply and costs is a crucial and immediate problem for the people of Washington state. I am working on several fronts to help alleviate these effects. The Energy Emergency Response Act of 2001 authorizes increased funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP. The program is a lifeline to many of our most vulnerable people, providing direct assistance to eligible households to pay for home energy. Because of the energy crisis, applications for LIHEAP assistance in Washington state have increased by more than 50 percent this year. We need to bolster the program, or it will fall short at a time when low- income people need it the most. This bill also authorizes increased funding for the Weatherization Program that provides insulation for Washington state homes, educates families on energy conservation, tests furnaces and ovens for safety and efficiency, and makes homes safer and healthier places to live. An average household saves 20 percent in fuel and energy costs every year as a result of participating in the Weatherization program. In these times of soaring energy costs, those savings are especially important. That is why this bill authorizes increased funding and raises the eligibility to 200 percent of the poverty level. The bill requires Federal facility managers to evaluate opportunities to increase efficiency of energy and water use and installation of renewable energy projects at federal facilities. It also requires that the evaluation period be followed by implementation of energy and water savings within the 180 days. Energy Savings Performance Contract usage is enhanced by this bill. These are innovative financing methods that leverage private sector investment and expertise to accomplish energy savings and cost savings in federal facilities. The bill amends the Federal Energy Management Program to include savings realized from operation and maintenance efficiencies. This bill also authorizes a total of $75 million for state energy conservation. This is for energy efficiency and emergency planning at the state level. The bill also clarifies the definition of energy savings to include water conservation, excluding Federal hydroelectric facilities. We are going to push for the funding of this bill to be appropriated through a special supplemental appropriation for 2001, adding $1 billion to base funding for LIHEAP, $152 million for weatherization, and $37 million for state energy conservation grants. We will also attempt to get forward funding for LIHEAP for 2002. I will be working with the Washington State delegation, Senator Bingaman, and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to move this bill and to push for funding as soon as possible. The energy crisis will not be resolved easily, but we can and should make this investment a part of our overall response to this issue. I urge my colleagues to move quickly on this legislation, and I hope that the President will make LIHEAP a priority in his upcoming budget.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce that I am cosponsoring the Agricultural Market Access and Development Act of 2001, which was introduced by Senator Murray today. This bill will authorize increases in the funding levels for agricultural market access and development programs in 2001 and 2002. These programs provide matching funds to assure aggressive marketing of our agricultural products in the international markets. U.S. exports of high-value and consumer-oriented agricultural products have increased steadily in recent years but are facing stiff competition from foreign sources. In 1998 foreign competitors outspent the U.S. by nearly 4 to 1 on export promotion activities. The Market Access Program is a cost-sharing approach to help U.S. farmers and growers close this funding gap. Program funds are used to generically support important Washington agricultural products. Washington State depends on agriculture to provide jobs, particularly in Eastern Washington which has been left out of the prosperity of the Puget Sound region. Apple growers in the Yakima valley must have new markets if their businesses are to survive and prosper. Eastern Washington needs these jobs and we need this program. Export markets provide some of the best economic support to the agricultural community. Agricultural products are an important part of the dynamic market mix that makes Washington a thriving, productive economic area. The matching funding of the Market Access Program helps to provide support and encouragement for the farmers and growers so important to Washington State and the Northwest. I thank Senator Murray for the leadership she has shown in promoting and protecting our agricultural interests. I look forward to continuing close cooperation with Senator Murray, other members of the Washington State delegation, as well as State and local leaders to support our valued agricultural interests.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment offered, that has been designed by Senator Corzine and offered by Senator Torricelli, Senator Murray, and myself. I want to take this opportunity to thank the sponsor for his diligence, not just on this amendment but the others, in hopes of improving the bill in the process. I know this has been a long process for many who have been involved including the senior Senator from my State. I applaud her for her diligent efforts along with Senator McCain, in trying to improve pipeline safety. As our Nation moves forward to meet our increasing energy needs in an environment where the supply of natural gas is very important, we need to also make sure that pipeline safety is implemented. As they currently stand, our current laws and regulations, I believe, do not adequately do the job in ensuring the safety of nearly 2 million miles of pipeline networks around this country. Indeed, we heard earlier from Senator Murray that our State, Washington, has faced the tragic consequences of unsafe pipelines head on. Two years ago, in a park near Bellingham, two 10-year-old boys died in a blast of flames and one young man drowned after being overcome by fumes when an aging pipeline burst. This was the worst of many pipeline accidents in our State, which has suffered from 47 reported incidents and more than $10 million in property damage between 1984 and 1999. My State is not alone, as you saw from the charts that Senator Murray and Senator Torricelli displayed, in facing the consequences of substandard pipeline safety. Just last August, in Carlsbad, NM, 11 people, including 5 children, died when a nearby pipeline explosion rained fire on their campsite. Again I applaud Senator Murray and Senator McCain for their efforts in trying to improve, through this legislation, pipeline safety not just for the States of Washington, New Jersey, and New Mexico, but for the whole country, so they may not face the tragedy the people of our States have faced. I believe one of the weaknesses of the underlying bill had been the issue of reporting and the bill's reliance on the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety for implementing guidelines we are seeking. OPS has not had a great record. In a June 2000 report, the GAO found that, since 1988, OPS has failed to implement 22 of the 49 requirements mandated by Congress--almost half of those requirements--and 10 of these 22 requirements are now between 5 and 11 years overdue. Moreover, the report exposed that OPS has the lowest rate of any transportation agency for implementing the NTSB regulations. Indeed, the GAO report concluded that OPS: . . .is a weak and overly compliant regulator that seldom imposes fines when violations are found, fails to fully involve State officials and often ignores reforms demanded by Congress. I think the amendment offered by my colleagues and myself will go a long way in making sure there are at least the reporting requirements mandated on a 5-year basis. I look forward to continuing to work with the sponsors of this legislation and the Washington delegation in the House and other Members on improving this legislation through the process.

Ms. CANTWELL. I say to my colleague from New Mexico, I appreciate being deferred. And I say to my other colleague from New Mexico, I appreciate and wish to be associated with his remarks. Obviously, we are here discussing the best ways to move forward on pipeline safety for the country. Obviously, despite the troubling record, this bill puts much of the responsibility of additional standards into the hands of the Transportation Department and the Office of Pipeline Safety. In this legislation, we are relying on the Office of Pipeline Safety--a small office of only 55 inspectors--to be the principal Government agency responsible for ensuring the safety of 2 million miles of our Nation's pipelines. After years of failure in responding to congressional mandates--not having the capacity--one of the key issues for me, as this bill moves through the process of the other body, and through a conference committee, will be the level of support for funding given to the Office of Pipeline Safety and their ability to take on the monitoring responsibilities and the responsibilities of the amendment that was offered by Senator Corzine, myself, and others, which was adopted. The pipeline safety disruptions not only endanger human health and safety but the leaks and explosions and fires associated with pipeline ruptures can devastate the environment and disrupt critical energy flows. Ultimately, considering the increasing incidents of pipeline disruption, and a system that has led to over 243 pipeline-related deaths since 1990, the unfortunate state of pipeline safety in this country demands that we make this a higher national priority. I believe the bill today--unlike the version prior to being amended, which was not a better bill--with this amendment that was adopted is a better bill, but I can only support this in the final passage out of conference if we continue to improve the bill through the process. I will be working diligently with my colleagues from around the country, with the delegation in Washington, and in the House to make sure that is a reality. I thank the Chair.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank my good friend, Senator Cleland of Georgia, for the honor and this gift of a very humble beginning for me in the Senate, to have the opportunity not only to work with him and my new colleagues but to be the recipient of such a warm welcome. Senator Jackson was obviously a landmark in our Capitol, as well as his years of dedication in our State. Senator Jackson arrived here in January of 1941--he was 28 years old--and started to represent the State of Washington, the Second Congressional District, and then later, for 31 years, served in the U.S. Senate. He was a great leader on foreign policy, on human rights, on arms control, and on the importance of our environment, with the Jackson- Vanik amendment, with the National Environmental Protection Act, and a variety of other landmark environmental policies that were so important to the State of Washington but also to this country. It is an honor to accept this gift from Senator Cleland of the desk of Senator Scoop Jackson, a Senator who was known as one who worked across the aisle in a bipartisan fashion. In fact, one observer of public policy, George Will, called him one of the ``finest public servants I have known, who mastered the delicate balance of democracy.'' Again, I thank the Senator from Georgia for this very kind gift and outreach on my very first day in the Senate in the hope that I will carry on the Northwest tradition that has been so important to our State.