Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation.

This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for

reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation.

I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority.

Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers.

While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer.

While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief.

Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused.

This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys.

This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states.

Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets.

To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat.

I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action.

This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it.

With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce--along with my colleagues Chairman Domenici, and Senators Bingaman and Murray--the Genomes to Life Research and Development Act.

This bill capitalizes on the enormous success of the Human Genome Project, and promises to take this important research to the next level. While the mapping of the human genome is an unparalleled accomplishment on its own, this new initiative will allow researchers to go beyond the science of description, and begin to explore the complex interactions of the elements within cells.

It is those intracellular dynamics that truly hold the key to finding solutions to some of our most difficult scientific problems--from detection of biological and chemical agents and nuclear waste clean-up to figuring out new and more efficient ways to produce hydrogen, so crucial in attaining energy independence for this Nation. Where the Human Genome Project has provided researchers with the range and description of musical notes, Genomes to Life will enable scientists to begin to understand the way these notes are arranged to produce music-- the essential process of life.

The Genomes to Life Act sets out an aggressive path for DOE, to make this area a high priority for the Office of Science. Of course, none of this would be possible without the successes of the Human Genome Project, and I want to acknowledge the vision of this legislation's other sponsor, Chairman Domenici, in making that a reality. As some of my colleagues may be aware, the senior Senator from New Mexico laid the foundation for the Human Genome Project with legislation he first introduced in 1987.

I am thus extremely pleased to be working with him on this bill, which I believe is the Human Genome Project's logical successor. Our legislation would authorize the Department of Energy to design and establish national research centers to investigate proteomics and genomics. Proteomics refers to the study of proteins, how they are modified, when and where they are expressed, how they are involved in metabolic pathways, and how they interact with each other. Genomics refers to the study of three-dimensional structures of thousands of proteins--all of the proteins produced by a species.

These are exciting research fields that combine the discipline of physics, chemistry, biology, engineering, and advanced computational and mathematical modeling. The Department of Energy's Office of Science has a long history of success in large scale, cross-discipline scientific research and is thus well suited to manage this program. In addition, a significant component of the Human Genome Project has been the transfer of technology to the private sector, which has in turn catalyzed the multi-billion dollar U.S. biotechnology industry and fostered the development of new medical applications.

The Genomes to Life Act that Chairman Domenici, Senators Bingaman, Murray and I are introducing today provides a coordinated and comprehensive plan for the next generation of biotechnology research facilities. The functions and dynamics of all living cells are determined by the complex interactions of the constituent proteins. We do not yet understand these interactions, but the Genomes to Life Act will give us the best tools to investigate these microscopic mysteries. Put in simple terms, teams of American scientists will try to answer the fundamental question, ``How do cells work?'' This bill will ensure that state of the art facilities, leading edge equipment, and the next generation of commuters are available to map and model these complex interactions, as we strive to answer this critical question.

The promise of biotechnology research is especially important to my state of Washington--home to many world-class research facilities. Washington has over 190 biotechnology companies employing more than 11,000 people. In 2001, the annual revenue of these companies exceeded $1.2 billion. Nearly one half of these companies were based on technologies developed at research and development institutions and over 40 percent of the companies have been established in the past six years.

This legislation's provisions--ensuring that research with its origins at the Department of Energy provides the science and technology basis for new industries in biotechnology, and that DOE continues to identify appropriate commercial applications--will help this important economic sector continue to grow in Washington state and across the country.

The Genomes to Life Research and Development Act that Sens. Domenici, Bingaman, Murray and I have introduced today will strengthen our national security and our national economy. Additionally, the integrative and predicative understanding of biological systems will improve our ability to respond to the energy and environmental challenges of the 21st century. The Genomes to Life laboratories will attract top researchers and push the envelope of present technologies. The Genomes to Life Act will help the U.S. to maintain our premiere position in the world in the fields of science and technology.

I look forward to working with my colleagues during this session to ensure passage of this legislation. I believe that the United States must continue to invest in scientific research to maintain our standing in the world and I am confident that this short-term investment will pay long-term dividends to our health, our security, and to our economy.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electricity Market Manipulation Prevention Act--legislation I believe is critical in ensuring our Nation's consumers will never again have to suffer from the type of energy price manipulation that has so devastated the economy of my home State of Washington. This bill is simple yet powerful in concept. In essence, it requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to do its job--protect consumers from energy price manipulation.

This bill says that where FERC gives companies the authority to charge market-based wholesale electricity rates, the Commission must also actively ensure that effective competition--the only kind of competition that benefits consumers and businesses--actually exists. It says that if FERC finds that an entity has attempted to manipulate power markets, the Commission will revoke or modify the company's ability to sell power at market-based rates, and the company will be on the hook to pay back revenues in excess of the average regional cost of generating the power. And lastly, it says that FERC will not be allowed to change the legal standard for

reviewing whether consumers deserve relief from market manipulation.

I first want to make a very important point about this legislation. In large part, it does not expand FERC's existing authority under the Federal Power Act. It simply articulates more explicitly how Congress intends for FERC to exercise its existing authority.

Now why is this an important point? As many of my colleagues may know, FERC--under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act--is already given the responsibility of ensuring just and reasonable wholesale electricity rates, and fixing those rates when market activity has gone awry. So why do we need clarification? Because despite overwhelming and undisputed evidence that any number of energy companies--Enron and its ilk--engaged in activities designed to manipulate power markets in the west, FERC has to date failed to take action on behalf of consumers.

While prices started skyrocketing out of control during the summer of 2000, it took the Commission nearly a year to step in and reign in those prices throughout the west. The provisions of this legislation that require FERC to perform annual reviews of how well markets are functioning would help ensure the Commission's active oversight, and prevent the type of price gouging from which consumers and businesses in my sate continue to suffer.

While the Commission did finally step in to cap prices--under intense congressional pressure, I might add--it has, almost 2 years later, failed to decisively act on the billions of dollars' worth of refund and long-term contract complaints resulting from the crisis. What's more, the Commission's Administrative Law Judges have taken every opportunity to throw additional hurdles in the path of the Northwest consumers, who have suffered more than any as a result of California's ill-fated restructuring scheme. That's why this legislation specifically articulates what legal standard should apply to the Commission's review of complaints for relief.

Even in the face of admitted market manipulation--in the most brazen of cases, where Enron has described its own schemes to drive up prices and Reliant's transcripts quote company traders explicitly voicing their plans to drive up prices throughout the west by withholding power--FERC has, more than two years later, failed to use all the tools at its disposal to send a message that such activities will not be tolerated, levying fines that are clearly inadequate compared to the economic devastation these activities have caused.

This bill makes the remedies for market manipulation far more transparent, doing away with the multiple years of arcane proceedings in which we are currently embroiled. The protracted cases resulting from the western energy crisis have yet to benefit anyone--certainly neither the industry nor consumers--except, perhaps, for energy attorneys.

This legislation tells energy companies that if they are going to attempt to manipulate markets, there will be harsh and immediate consequences. It says that if the commission finds that an entity has attempted to gouge consumers, it will revoke or revise its market-based rate authority, set a just and reasonable rate going forward, and order the refund of revenues collected above the average wholesale generation cost within the relevant regional power market. Concrete, explicit consequences--commensurate with the level of damage caused by marketplace shenanigans--should provide a powerful disincentive for companies tempted to engage in the types of behavior that have crippled the economy of Washington and other western states.

Now, I can already hear the outcry from some--but not all sectors--of the energy industry. They will claim that putting concrete remedies on the books--transparent mechanisms for consumer relief, and tangible penalties for companies that endeavor to gouge consumers--will breed too much uncertainty for participants in energy markets.

To those who would make that argument, I would simply say, it is absolutely absurd to suggest that energy companies can't make money unless they retain their legal rights to rip off the ratepayers of this country. Ensuring that FERC--which is supposed to be, in Chairman Pat Wood's own words, ``the tough cop on the beat''--takes swift and decisive action when energy companies attempt to manipulate markets is an issue of simple fairness and common sense. Afterall, it is our Nation's ratepayers--residential and industrial customers alike--who pay the price for FERC's inaction, and FERC is the only cop on the beat.

I have stood on this floor many times to speak of the economic train wreck created in my state by FERC's inaction in the face of the western energy crisis, which we now know resulted in large part from bad actors who decided to take advantage of a near-historic drought and tragically flawed market rules in California. Today, retail rates in many parts of my State of Washington have risen almost 50 percent, our unemployment is consistently among the top five in the nation, the demand for low- income energy assistance is at record levels, we are struggling to stave off yet another regional rate increase, and there is no end in sight--unless FERC takes long-overdue action.

This bill sends a clear signal to FERC: we expect you to right the wrongs from which consumers throughout the west continue to suffer, and we expect you to use your authority to ensure a repeat of the western energy crisis never occurs. There is no other competitively traded commodity aside from electricity--soy beans, wheat, pork bellies, metals--for which a prolonged price run-up can single-handedly cripple industries as diverse as aluminum smelting, microchip manufacturing, irrigated agriculture, paper production or aerospace. Clearly, the economic stakes are exceptionally high when it comes to electricity, and as such, Congress must demand a greater degree of accountability from both the industry itself and those who regulate it.

With this bill, we make Congress' intent perfectly clear: FERC must protect consumers; there will be swift and decisive action against those who endeavor to manipulate markets; and the deck will not be stacked against the consumers and businesses who are the victim of Enron-like schemes.

Thank you, Mr. President. I rise today to speak on the Low Income Taxpayer Protection Act of 2003, which Senator Bingaman and I are introducing today. I thank Senator Bingaman for his leadership on this important issue.

The legislation that my colleague from New Mexico and I are introducing would provide the Department of the Treasury with the authority to regulate income tax refund anticipation loans, RALs, and prohibit excessive fees. The bill would also provide additional opportunities for low-income taxpayers to receive assistance with tax preparation and filing their taxes and thus, we are seeking to meet taxpayers' needs for assistance while attempting to discourage a predatory practice.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, in 2001, the Earned Income Tax Credit, EITC, was responsible for elevating nearly four million people above the poverty line. This credit has helped and continues to help low-income individuals and families to meet their food, clothing, housing, transportation, and education needs.

However, while this tax relief is benefitting families who need it most, the EITC's impact is being unnecessarily limited. Earned Income Tax Credit benefits intended for working families are increasingly being diminished by often exorbitant tax preparation fees and the growing use of high-interest refund anticipation loans, which typically carry triple-digit interest rates.

In 1999, according to a report published by the Brookings Institution, an estimated $1.75 billion intended to assist low-income families went to commercial tax preparers and affiliated national banks for tax assistance, electronic filing of returns, and high-cost refund loans. Although tax preparation services are useful, when combined with refund anticipation loans and other fees, these services are overpriced. The report further stated that 39 percent of taxpayers who earned the EITC received their refund through a refund anticipation loan, while only

four percent of those who did not receive the EITC purchased a refund anticipation loan. Clearly, RALs were heavily marketed to a specific population of taxpayer. Forty-seven percent of all EITC dollars were distributed to recipients through these loans. In my state of Hawaii, in the Honolulu metropolitan statistical area, 27.7 percent of all EITC dollars were associated with refund anticipation loans. These loans take money away from the day-to-day, kitchen-table needs of the low- income families.

Furthermore, refund anticipation loans carry interest rates that range from 97.4 percent to more than 2,000 percent. The interest rates and fees charged on these products are not justified for the short length of time that these loans cover. The typical rapid refund loan length is two weeks. These loans carry even less risk because of the Debt Indicator program. The Debt Indicator program allows the Internal Revenue Service to inform the lender if the applicant for a refund loan has any outstanding Federal debts. The risk is further reduced because loan issuers share information about outstanding delinquencies that refund anticipation loan applicants owe and are able to collect debts for each other.

This bill would terminate the Debt Indicator program. In 1995, the use of the Debt Indicator was suspended because of massive fraud in e- filed returns with RALs. After the program was discontinued, RAL participation declined. The use of the Debt Indicator was reinstated in 1999. Remarks from H & R Block Chief Executive Officer Frank L. Salizzoni upon the reinstatement of the program state that the Debt Indicator ``is good news for many of our clients who opt to receive the amount of their refund through Refund Anticipation Loans. The IRS program will likely result in substantially lower fees for this service.'' However, according to a study conducted by the Consumer Federation of America and the National Consumer Law Center, that has not been the case for at least one of the major tax preparers. H & R Block and Household Bank's fees dropped for a year after the Debt Indicator was reinstated. The fees rose significantly from 2000 to 2001, which increased H & R Block's revenue from RALs by 49 percent. Per RAL revenue rose by 43.9 percent while RAL sales volume increased by only 2.7 percent. The expected outcome that RAL prices would go down as a result of the reinstatement of the indicator has not occurred. The use of the Debt Indicator should again be stopped.

Another important provision in the bill is authorization language for a grant program to link tax preparation services with the establishment of a bank account. There are still approximately four million EITC recipients that are classified as unbanked, and lack a formal relationship with a financial institution. It has been estimated that 45 percent of EITC recipients pay for check cashing services. These check cashing services reduce EITC benefits by $130 million. Having a bank account allows individuals not only to receive their tax refund check faster than waiting for a paper check, but also does not impose the excessive fees that check cashing services and refund anticipation loan providers assess. An account at a bank or credit union provides consumers alternatives to rapid refund loans, check cashing services, and lower cost remittances. In addition, bank and credit union accounts provide access to saving and borrowing services found at mainstream financial institutions. This grant program builds upon the First Accounts initiative which has funded pilot projects that have coupled tax preparation services with the establishment of bank accounts. An example of such a project is the partnership that has been established among The Center for Law & Human Services, Accounting Aid Society, ShoreBank, National Consumer Law Center, and Consumer Federation of America that is taking place in Chicago and Detroit. More of these programs are necessary to provide much needed tax preparation assistance and to encourage the use of mainstream financial services.

I encourage all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to right a wrong. I am doing so on behalf of myself and Mr. Wyden, Mr. Allard, Mr. Bayh, Mr. Bond, Mr. Brownback, Mr. Miller, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Santorum, and Mr. Specter. For far too many years, Americans who have been murdered overseas by terrorists have not been receiving the full weight of equal justice under the law, a fundamental principle of our governance. This is happening while we are in the midst of trying to introduce the institutions of democracy, including the notion of a fair judicial system, to a skeptical part of the world. This is happening while we are in the midst of a War on Terrorism.

This double standard of justice sends out a pernicious, mixed message to would-be terrorists around the world. It suggests that we are weak in our resolve to prosecute certain terrorists who have murdered certain American citizens. It wrongly sends the message that certain American lives are more valuable and more worthy of justice than others. Or as the mother of Mathew Eisenfeld, a young Yale University graduate who was killed in 1996, together with his young fiance, Sara Ducker, a Barnard College graduate, put it, ``it makes me feel that my son's blood is less American than others.''

When our embassies were attacked in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, 1998, then Secretary of State Albright and President Clinton said, ``You can run but you can't hide from the long arm of American justice. Anywhere an American is murdered around the globe, we will seek out that suspect and retrieve him to these shores to stand justice.''

However, since the signing of the Oslo Accords on September 13, 1993, thirty-nine American citizens have lost their lives at the hands of Palestinian terrorists alone. And how many indictments have there been in response to these thirty-nine murders? Zero. Notably, one can't find the term Palestinian on the State Department's web site for the ``Rewards of Justice'' program--the place where suspects are listed and rewards are described for their capture. That website rather contains only vague references to ``persons in opposition to the Middle East Peace Process.''

This is simply wrong. On the humanitarian level, it is wrong. When our own government fails to mete out justice with equal and due diligence for a particular victim, or a group of victims, this compounds the grief experienced by American families who have lost loved ones to terrorists: families such as that of 14 year old Abigail Litle, an American girl from New Hampshire, a young Christian who was among the fifteen people murdered in the recent terrorist attack on a bus in Haifa, Israel; families like those of Ted Burgon of Oregon and Rick Spier of Colorado, the two American teachers killed in August of 2002 in Indonesia. Murders for which there have been no indictments and no suspects named. FBI agents have underscored that until such time as they have full and unfettered access to witnesses and evidence in Indonesia, they cannot rule out terrorism, nor can they exonerate members of the Indonesian military who have been implicated in this heinous crime.

This is wrong as a matter of foreign policy. Anything less than 100 percent commitment to pursue all terrorists who harm or murder American citizens undermines our moral clarity and our War on Terrorism. it also serves to embolden would-be terrorists all over the world, ultimately putting us all at greater risk.

We have arrived at this unfortunate juncture because the State Department, whose major objective is diplomacy, has had primary purview over this issue. The State Department, it would seem, has simply not brought its full resources to bear when it comes to facilitating the investigation, capture and prosecution of those who have murdered Americans overseas. This is particularly true if those Americans have been murdered in Israel or in areas under control of the Palestinian Authority, or in countries whose support we are seeking or counting on in the War on Terrorism.

The major objective of the Justice Department, in contrast, is justice. The Justice Department recently scored a victory, when on February 20th, they issued indictments on several members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. That terrorist organization is believed to be responsible for the deaths of two American citizens, and dozens of other people in recent years. As we celebrate this substantial step toward justice, however, we cannot lose sight of the fact that there is much more work to be done.

We should not, and cannot, in good conscience allow the pursuit of justice to be suborned to diplomatic considerations and expediencies. This is why I am introducing the Koby Mandell Act of 2003. Koby was a 13 year old boy from Silver Spring, MD, who one day decided to do the Huck Finn thing, and skip school. However, the punishment did not fit the crime. His body was found brutally stoned and dismembered in a cave outside of Tekoah, Israel. His assailants remain at large in the Palestinian controlled areas.

This Act will create a watch-dog office within the Department of Justice to ensure that all terrorists who murder or harm American citizens overseas are pursued with equal vigor, irrespective of the nationality or current residence of the terrorist. This Act will work to ensure that no other American family who has suffered at the hands of overseas terrorism will have their grief compounded a lack of justice.

I urge you all to join me and my fellow senator from the State of Oregon, ron Wyden, by becoming a sponsor of the Koby Mandell Act, to put the issue of justice for American victims of overseas terrorism into the hands of the Justice department, where it truly belongs.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Koby Mandell Act of 2003 be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues-- Senators Murray, Landrieu, Breaux, Bingaman, and Inouye--to introduce the Poison Control Center Awareness and Enhancement Act of 2003. Our bill is designed to help make certain that the vital work of our nation's poison control centers continues.

Many of us--as parents and grandparents--have experienced the terrifying situation when a child accidentally swallows something potentially toxic. Fortunately, local poison control centers--many of them located at children's hospitals--work around the clock to answer questions from parents and to field phone calls from others about possible poisonings. Today, we also have in place a national, toll-free poison control telephone number--and that number is 1-800-222-1222-- that automatically connects callers to specially trained nurses, pharmacists, and doctors at the closest local poison center.

This phone number went into effect as a result of legislation I helped get signed into law a few years ago. And now, as parents of eight children and now grandparents of eight, my wife, Fran, and I can tell you that we rest a bit easier knowing that in the case of a possible poisoning, all we need to do is call a toll free, 1-800 telephone number to get in contact with the nearest poison control center. Any parents, anywhere--whether they are in their own hometown or in another state on vacation--can call the 1-800 number, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week in the event of a poisoning.

There are over 70 poison control centers nationwide--three in my home State of Ohio. These centers have fielded over one million phone calls just since January 2002, answering questions about poisonous, drug abuse, product contents, substance identification interactions, and adverse reactions. They can answer questions and concerns about what would typically be called poisonous products--things like cleaners and bleach. This is the most common poison exposure for children, who typically ingest household products, such as cosmetics and personal care products, cleaning substances, pain relievers, foreign bodies, and plants.

But poison control centers can also answer questions about products that people may not think are poisonous, like prescribed medicines or over-the-counter medications. Maybe someone mixed medications or misread a label and took too much of the medicine by accident. Poison control centers can answer caller questions and direct the caller to seek medical attention if necessary.

I remember very clearly a time when Fran and I needed to call the local poison control center. As we were wrapping up our annual Ice Cream Social at our home in Cedarville, our then two year-old granddaughter, Isabelle, fell into a bucket of cleaning solution. We feared that she may have swallowed some of the solution and immediately called the poison control center. We were very lucky. The trained health care professional at the local poison center explained that all we needed to do was rinse Isabelle off and have her drink some water. The quick response of the poison control center provided rapid, easy answers to our questions--a process that has become even easier since the toll-free hotline began operating.

A young child, like Isabelle, is representative of most poisoning cases; however, adults often face situations necessitating information and help from poison control centers. Take the example of what occurred in Marysville, OH. Thirty workers in a manufacturing plant in Marysville were victims of gas exposure. Twenty of these workers went to Union Memorial Hospital. The hospital contacted the poison center, after which these patients were given oxygen and later discharged that same day. Ten others went to a different hospital that did not call a poison center. These patients were not released until the next day, even though their symptoms did not differ from the other 20 workers. The national hotline will help cut-down on situations like that in Marysville.

Our Nation's poison control centers handle an average of one poison exposure every 15 seconds. These centers are critical to our communities--especially now during this time of war and uncertainty. Parents are already anxious about the safety of their children, and with the potential anthrax scares or chemical or biologic scares, poison control centers can provide information to parents and help relieve some of their concerns.

The bill we are introducing today would provide the continued funding needed to ensure that the national toll-free number continues to operate, taking phone calls and helping families across the country. We must continue to increase the accessibility and effectiveness of our nation's poison control centers, as well as cement their existence for future generations. With this bill, we are not just making an investment in poison control; rather, we are making it easier to keep our children, friends, and ourselves safer and healthier.

I encourage my colleagues to remember the hotline number--it could save a life: 1-800-222-1222.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.