Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a heavy heart to honor Sister Nancy Salisbury RSCJ, a distinguished and nationally respected and beloved educator who passed away on September 27, 2004 at Oakwood in Atherton, California.

Born May 15, 1930 in New York City, Sister Salisbury was the daughter of the late Philip Turner Salisbury and Ethel Walsh Salisbury. She was educated at Convent of the Sacred Heart in Overbrook, Pennsylvania, and earned her bachelor's degree from Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart in Purchase, New York in 1952. She received a master's degree in History from Manhattanville in 1962 and a second master's degree in Mathematics from the University of Detroit in 1968.

Sister Salisbury entered the Religious Order of the Sacred Heart in 1952 and devoted her life to the Society as a teacher, administrator, headmistress and mentor. The stature of her accomplishments are reflected in the following:

Headmistress, Convent of the Sacred Heart, New York City,

1980-2000

Chair, New York State Association of Independent Schools

Accreditation Commission

Vice Chair, Board of Trustees, New York State Association

of Independent Schools

Headmistress, Convent of the Sacred Heart, Greenwich, 1970-

1980

Head of Middle and Upper Schools, Convent of the Sacred

Heart, Greenwich and New York City

Teacher, Administrator, Sacred Heart Schools: Greenwich,

Grosse Pointe, Kenwood, New York

Chair, Guild of Headmasters of Independent Schools, New

York City

Chair, Fairchester Association of Headmasters

Chair, Board of Trustees, Carrolton School of the Sacred

Heart

Vice Chair, Board of Trustees, Early Steps

Member, Network of Sacred Heart Schools Commission on Goals

(NCOG)

Member, Boards of Trustees: Network of Sacred Heart

Schools: Greenwich, Doane Stuart; Youth Services

Opportunities Program, Independent School Admissions

Association of Greater New York, Connecticut Association of

Independent Schools, Manhattanville College Alumni

Association Member, Committees of the New York Province of

the Society of the Sacred Heart

Upon her retirement as headmistress of the Convent of the

Sacred Heart School in New York, Sister Salisbury spent time

in Chicago where she continued her mentorship of young women

entering the congregation. It was in recent years that she

came to the

Oakwood Community, and earlier this year became its Director.

Of Oakwood she said ``I continue to discover each day the

deep roots of the love of God, the Society and the Community.

I believe it is these bonds which make Oakwood a home of joy,

understanding, reconciliation and celebration. I see my

responsibility to find new ways of keeping this spirit alive

and visible as we celebrate the end of our journey together

in love.''

Sister Salisbury was a holy woman, devoted to her RSCJ

community and their mission, and deeply committed to living

her life loving and serving the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Her

wisdom was recognized by anyone who met her. Her wisdom was

more than being smart . . . it came not from a busy head but

from a deeper well . . . her peaceful heart. Her leadership

skills lifted people to new heights and she emulated Jesus by

gathering, teaching, and loving the children and she

contributed mightily to the future well being of our nation,

preparing generations of young women for leadership roles. I

ask my colleagues to join me in honoring this good and great

woman, paying tribute to her, the life she lived and the

lives she shaped. How blessed I am to have known her and

benefited from her love, counsel and wisdom.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence for yielding me this time.

Today I think it is an historic opportunity for the Congress to confront the critical threats to our national security. But the House Republican leadership unfortunately has refused to address this problem in a comprehensive and bipartisan manner.

Last April, 6 long months ago, all 9 Democrats of the House Select Committee on Intelligence introduced a reform bill. We incorporated the lessons from the congressional joint inquiry into 9/11 and the intelligence failures on the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The 9/ 11 Commission, inspired by the families of the victims, built on our bill and they developed a comprehensive set of recommendations to overhaul the intelligence community.

The Senate, the other body, embraced the 9/11 Commission recommendations in a bipartisan manner by a vote of 96 to 2 and passed a bill that the 9/11 families support and the Commission fully endorsed. No amendment was accepted that reduced the authority of the national intelligence director or the mission of the National Counterterrorism Center. This is the bill I believe we should be voting on today.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 10 is not such a bill. It is not endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, and it does not fulfill the mandate of the victims' families, as well as I think the hopes and aspirations of the American people.

Last week, at the House Select Committee on Intelligence markup, I offered an amendment to strengthen the quality of analysis in National Intelligence Estimates. That is the ultimate document that is offered to the President and to the Congress to rank and to determine what the threat is. Have we not learned, I say to my colleagues, the failures that were incorporated in that national intelligence estimate that led us to war, and this country is at war today.

I think we can do better. I believe that we should be emulating what the Senate has done, do this on a bipartisan basis. I do not believe this fits the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise with serious concerns about H.R. 10. Today we have a historic opportunity to confront the critical threats to our national security, but the House Republican leadership has refused to address this problem in a comprehensive, bipartisan manner.

Last April, all 6 months ago, Democrats of the House Intelligence Committee introduced an intelligence reform bill.

We incorporated the lessons from the Congressional Joint Inquiry into 9/11 and the intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The 9/11 Commission--inspired by the families of victims-- built on our bill and developed their comprehensive set of recommendations to overhaul our Intelligence Community and congressional oversight of intelligence.

The other body embraced the 9/11 Commission recommendations in a bipartisan manner, and by a vote of 96-2 passed the bill that the 9/11 families support and the 9/11 Commission fully endorsed. No amendment was accepted that reduced the authority of the National Intelligence Director, or the mission of the National Counter Terrorism Center. This is the bill we should be voting on today. H.R. 10 is not such a bill. It is not endorsed by the 9/11 Commission, and it doesn't fulfill the mandate of the victims' families and the American people.

Last week at the House Intelligence Committee, I offered an amendment to improve the quality of analysis in National Intelligence Estimates. The amendment required intelligence analysis to provide a better analysis of the quality of their sources and the uncertainties in their judgments. It was defeated on a party-line vote.

Ultimately, I supported Title I of H.R. 10 in Committee markup last week, because it contained 3 bipartisan amendments which made this bill a better reflection of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

The bill the Rules Committee brings to the floor today includes none of the bipartisan amendments passed, and rejects many of the core recommendation of the Commission.

This bill falls far short of the 9/11 Commission's recommendations-- far short of what the other body passed overwhelmingly. The National Intelligence Director doesn't have the necessary authorities to direct the intelligence community or to move resources when priorities change. The National Counter Terrorism Center will have a director without clout, with a limited mission, and with little ability to coordinate counter terrorism operations across the Federal Government.

And to make matters worse, the Republican leadership has included so- called ``poison pills '' in the bill--such as anti-immigration policies dressed up as counterterrorism, and a provision that could undue our treaty obligations under the Convention Against Torture. This is nothing but a cynical ploy, an attempt to label those Democrats who will not support this weak legislation as somehow ``weak'' against terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, our responsibility today is to strengthen our national security as the 9/11 Commission recommended. We can honor the 9/11 families and pass the bill they've been fighting for for 3 years. H.R. 10 simply isn't that bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), for his leadership as ranking member on this Subcommittee on Health, which is so important not only here in the Congress but for our entire country; and to my good friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), our chairman. Surely we would not be here this afternoon were it not for his support and pushing to bring this to the floor so that we can consider it.

What this bill is about, Mr. Speaker, is legislation that is going to fix a flaw in the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education payment formula. This formula inadvertently penalizes Lucile Packard Children's Hospital, which is in my district in Palo Alto.

If I just might depart for a moment, Lucile Packard is the mother and the visionary that established this hospital in Palo Alto. There are many from across the world and from different parts of the country that come to have their children cared for there. So I think she is watching us, and she would be very proud. Were it not for Lucile Packard, as I said, this hospital would not exist today.

Mr. Speaker, a portion of the Graduate Medical Education calculation is based on the severity of case mixes. At Lucile Packard Hospital, which is only one of two hospitals in the United States that offers pregnancy and healthy newborn services, it is then penalized. Most do not take care of healthy newborn babies. When they become part of the mix with the very ill ones, the formula becomes skewed. So if the hospital did not care for the healthy newborns, we would not be here today.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce took a look at this to fix it permanently. As the gentleman stated, that will be taken care of in 2006. Today, we are fixing the small gap between now and 2006. It is going to go a long way.

I want to reassure my colleagues, there are not any costs associated with the bill. This is paid for by a reduction in the fiscal year 2005 payment to all hospitals that receive these payments under the program, and that would not have happened unless the hospitals came together. And they have endorsed this. There is endorsement from the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and I want to thank them for coming together to allow this to happen.

I also want to thank John Ford on the staff of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and certainly Chuck Clapton on the staff of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), and I want to urge all my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 5204. It is going to help a great deal, and that help is going to be appreciated not only by the children and their families, but also the young physicians that have devoted themselves to a life in medicine; and in this graduate medical payment, it will enjoy the fullness it should and this will be repaired.

Again, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), most of all for his friendship that I have enjoyed and benefited from and am grateful for since first coming to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to what is an assault on our Constitution, H. J. Res. 106, the Marriage Protection Amendment.

Constitutional amendments can never be taken lightly. Our Constitution has been amended only twenty-seven times in the two centuries since our country was founded, but it's never been amended to limit the civil rights of a specific group of people as we are doing here today.

Few policy issues are more grounded in the jurisdiction of the fifty states than the laws of marriage. As Vice President Cheney said in a recent interview, ``Historically, that's been a relationship that's been handled by the states,'' and ``States have made the basic fundamental decision [as to] what constitutes a marriage.'' I agree with the Vice President. Should this legislation pass, not only would state courts be prohibited from recognizing same-sex marriages, but states would also be prohibited from enacting legislation to grant same-sex marriages through referendum, ballot initiative, or even through their own state constitutional amendment process, even in states where the majority supports it.

As I strongly oppose the content of this legislation, the Majority's motivation to consider it today is raw politics. Bringing this legislation up weeks before our national elections, divides this nation even further at a time when critical issues and needs must be addressed. We should be using this time to focus on the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; on the restructuring of our intelligence community; on protecting our ports, nuclear facilities and other potential targets from terrorists; on the rising health care costs in this country; on the loss of jobs throughout this country; on reducing our spiraling budget deficit; or on the rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq. Instead, one month before the election, we're debating an amendment to our Constitution that has no hope of enactment, but merely because the Republican Majority believes they will be able to score points with this ill-begotten bill.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation and get back to work on the critical needs facing America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the life of Joe Holsinger who died on September 10, 2004, at the age of 82.

Joe Holsinger was a distinguished public servant with a long record of service to the people of California. He was a brilliant man, a political mentor to me and to many others, and he will be missed by everyone who had the privilege of knowing him.

Joe Holsinger was born Galen Wright Holsinger on November 24, 1921, in Bellwood, Pennsylvania. He attended the University of Pittsburgh for two and a half years before enlisting in the U.S. Army and completing his service as an officer. After World War II he settled in California, graduated from U.C. Santa Barbara, and began a career in real estate.

His career in public service began in 1975 when he became Congressman Leo Ryan's Administrative Assistant, in charge of both the Washington, D.C. and San Mateo offices. After Congressman Ryan's tragic assassination in Guyana in November, 1978, Joe unsuccessfully sought the Congressional seat. He returned to his former career for several years in real estate as head of Holsinger Properties, Inc. During this time he met Bill Honig, a school district superintendent from Marin County who was seeking election as California's Superintendent of Public Instruction. He supported Bill Honig in his successful 1982 campaign and then joined his staff as a special consultant on school reform legislation. He became Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction in 1983 and was instrumental in the enactment of the Hughes-Hart School Reform bill (SB 813). He left the Department of Education in 1985 to return to his commercial real estate practice, but returned in late 1988 at the request of Superintendent Honig and resumed his position as Deputy Superintendent for Governmental Policy. Joe Holsinger retired in December 1994, but continued to consult with many legislators in Sacramento until earlier this year.

Joe was a founding member of Americans for Democratic Action (1947), the first president of the Federated Young Democrats of San Francisco (1949) and a founding member and chairman of the Credentials Committee for the first state convention of the California Democratic Council (CDC) in 1953. He was a longstanding member of the California Democratic Party and state executive committee, serving two terms as Chairman of the Rules Committee and as the Northern California chairman from 1968 to 1970. Joe Holsinger also served as Northern California chairman for the 1968 Eugene McCarthy presidential primary campaign and Jimmy Carter's successful campaign for President in 1976.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the memory of this patriotic American, distinguished public servant, successful private sector leader, father and grandfather.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Farr and I rise today to honor the life of George Ow, a local businessman and philanthropist, who passed away July 26, 2004 at the age of 85. He was a beloved member of the Scoffs Valley community and well known throughout Santa Cruz County for his generous nature. He is survived by seven children and 14 grandchildren.

George Ow emigrated from China to the United States in 1937, arriving in Santa Cruz to begin his quest for the American Dream. He eventually emerged as one of our region's most prominent businessmen and philanthropists and his life story now stands as an outstanding model of achievement for all.

Before becoming successful, George Ow had a long uphill climb that proved his perseverance and determination. He first worked in his uncle's grocery store while attending and eventually graduating from Santa Cruz High School. From 1944 to 1945 George Ow served in the United States Army and participated in the Allied Liberation of the Philippines. After his service in the military he returned to the Central Coast, building the foundations for his successful business ventures. Investing in commercial real estate, George Ow single- handedly created the business corridor along Capitola's 41st Avenue and Scotts Valley's King's Village Shopping Center.

Throughout his rise to fortune and success, George Ow never forgot the community that nurtured him in his earlier days as a young immigrant. For more than three decades, he was active in the National Exchange Club, a national organization dedicated to community service and youth outreach. In the 1970s he was elected as President of the Club, the first time this post was filled by a non-white individual. He also created dozens of youth scholarships for minority students and donated money to local arts groups, such as Shakespeare Santa Cruz, and a variety of other health foundations. George Ow returned large portions of wealth back to his community, a gift that strengthens our community and our country.

Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in extending our condolences to George Ow's family and friends. As a dedicated member of the Santa Cruz and Scotts Valley community, his achievements in life represent the epitome of the American Dream. He will be missed greatly by the community he loved, served, and gave so much to.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to recognize Richard M. Levy, Ph.D., my constituent from the 14th Congressional District of California and Chairman, President and CEO of Varian Medical Systems, who will be awarded the AeA 2004 Medal of Achievement on October 7, 2004. Dr. Levy will join a very select group of high-tech leaders who have received this honor, including William Hewlett and David Packard of Hewlett Packard, Ross Perot of Electronic Data Systems, Thomas J. Watson, Jr. of IBM, and Gordon Moore and Andrew Grove of Intel.

The AeA Medal of Achievement is presented annually to recognize an individual who makes significant contributions to the advancement of and service to their community, the high-tech industry, and humankind. It is the highest award presented by AeA, the Nation's largest hightech trade association.

Varian Medical Systems was created in 1999 when Varian Associates, Inc., a company Dr. Levy joined in 1968, was divided into three separate companies. It provides high energy radiation machines and associated hardware and software for treating cancer, and x-ray tubes for imaging in medical, scientific and industrial applications. With over 2,500 radiotherapy systems in place delivering treatments to more than one million cancer patients per year, including over 50 percent of all cancer patients in the U.S., the company holds a clear leadership position in this technology. Varian Medical Systems also ranks as the world's largest merchant supplier of x-ray tubes, including products for use in CT scanners, mammography units, and other diagnostic systems.

Dr. Levy earned his bachelor's degree from Dartmouth College and his doctorate in Nuclear Chemistry from the University of California at Berkeley. He began his business career at the Monsanto Company where he applied his scientific background as a research specialist and project manager in both basic and applied research. Within Varian, prior to assuming management and CEO duties, he gained experience in sales, marketing, service, R&D, and various corporate functions as well as managing the corporate Quality Program. Dr. Levy served as senior vice president from 1989 to 1992, and executive vice president until 1999, when Varian Medical Systems was formed and he was named CEO.

Dr. Levy is a member of the Board of Trustees of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and the Boards of Directors of Pharmacyclics, Inc. and the California Healthcare Institute. He is a past Chairman of the Board of Directors of AeA, and served on the Board of Directors of the Diagnostic Imaging and Therapy Systems Division of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

I ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary leadership and contributions of Dr. Richard M. Levy as he receives the AeA Medal of Achievement Award.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate and observe the solemn anniversary of the unspeakable attacks of September 11, 2001, and in particular to express my deepest sympathies to the families of two American heroes, Naomi Solomon who died in the World Trade Center and Andy Garcia who lost his life aboard Flight 93.

Few events in U.S. history have been so jarring to our collective security and so unifying. The sorrow we all felt that day was surpassed only by our commitment to do everything possible to ensure that never again would we be so vulnerable and so unprepared.

Today, on the third anniversary of that fate-filled day, we must reconnect ourselves to the task of actually doing what has not yet been completed to make America safe.

While we've made progress, we cannot rest. Whether on land, sea, or air, critical security gaps continue to exist 3 years after the attacks of September 11. We have before us concrete steps, recommended by the 9/11 Commission, to address our vulnerabilities and to strengthen our defenses. Congress must reform the intelligence community by doing the following:

Create a strong National Intelligence Director;

Improve Congressional oversight;

Ensure an integrated terrorist watch list;

Strengthen the FBI's ability to collect and analyze domestic intelligence;

Create an integrated strategic plan for aviation and transportation security;

Improve airline passenger and baggage screening;

Improve coordination between FAA and military authorities;

Provide for the increased assignment of radio spectrum for safety purposes; and

Make the Select Committee on Homeland Security permanent.

In the aftermath of our Nation's tragedy, the American people wanted to know how we could help the families of the victims. Their response was to seek independent investigation of what led up to the attack on our country. We owe it to them and to our entire Nation to implement the unanimous recommendations of the bipartisan Commission to protect the American people and our national security. We can do nothing less.

Mr. Speaker, I'm joined by Representatives Lofgren and Honda in rising today to recognize the achievements of Ken Yeager, District Six City Councilman for the City of San Jose and co-founder of the Bay Area Municipal Elections Committee, a four county Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender political action group celebrating 20 years of civil rights advocacy.

Ken represents the neighborhoods of Willow Glen, Rose Garden, Shasta/ Hanchett, Sherman Oaks, Cory, Canoas Gardens, Hamann Park and Buena Vista on the San Jose City Council. He is a graduate of San Jose State where he interned with former City Councilmember Susie Wilson. He then worked for Congressman Don Edwards, leaving to earn a Ph.D. from Stanford in 1991.

Ken was the first openly gay man to be elected to office in Silicon Valley when he was elected to the San Jose Community College Board. He has dedicated much of his impressive career to educating the community about LGBT issues and fighting for their rights throughout the Silicon Valley.

BAYMEC was founded to educate and inform, and it has raised its concerns with countless elected officials. It lobbied Sacramento on AIDS and LGBT civil rights and worked with police, fire departments, governmental, organizational, and a variety of community groups to further equality for LGBTs. BAYMEC continues to lobby for the passage of hate-crime legislation, transgender issues, domestic partnership rights and civil unions, as well as bringing LGBT sensitivity to the forefront in the domestic violence field.

During LGBT Pride weekend, Ken spearheaded the campaign to fly the rainbow freedom flag over City Hall. He worked hard to make sure that the Billy DeFrank LGBT Community Center was completed on time and chaired the fundraising committee to improve the center. Ken has also led the drive to pass a Gender Non-Discrimination Ordinance for the City and he supports providing full benefits for all married City employees, regardless of sexual orientation.

Mr. Speaker, we ask our colleagues to join us in thanking Ken Yeager for his steadfast and tireless service to his constituents and to the LGBT community. We look forward to working with him to further the causes important to BAYMEC, because until all people are treated with dignity and respect, none of us can truly be free.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), my good friend and classmate, for yielding me this time.

I am very proud to be the Democratic lead sponsor of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act, and I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for his partnership and his hard work, and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Baker), as well as colleagues from both sides of the aisle for the work that they have done to bring this issue forward so that we can take this up on the floor of the House today.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board, FASB, has sought for years to force public companies to expense stock options from their earnings, and Congress has consistently turned away these efforts. This is not the first time. I hope it will be the last time, but it is not the first time.

Now, the board has seized on the recent corporate scandals to push this controversial proposal through. But supporters of the FASB rule, including FASB itself, are unable to identify a single instance where the accounting treatment of broad-based stock option plans for rank- and-file employees has contributed to corporate misconduct or shareholder fraud. Stock options are already fully disclosed in corporate financial treatments. They are not, however, deducted from earnings.

The reason most companies reject the expensing of stock options is that their actual cost is highly speculative and extremely difficult to measure. Options have a direct impact on the dilution of shareholder value, but the actual cost to the company is uncertain. Furthermore, valuation of employee options is highly inaccurate, and FASB has yet to come up with an acceptable means for estimating their value.

That is why this legislation is needed. It is needed to prevent FASB's new rules from taking effect later this year, causing substantial disarray in corporate accounting. Implementation of these new accounting rules would have a disastrous impact on American companies and, most importantly, American workers. If companies are forced to expense stock options, most likely they will drop broad-based stock option plans because of the prospect of taking a huge and misleading charge against their bottom line.

So while corporate executives will undoubtedly continue to receive lucrative compensation, rank-and-file employees will lose the benefits of these employee ownership programs.

Congress, I believe, has the responsibility to ensure that a major change in corporate accounting is appropriate and that it is implemented prudently. Why? Because impacts on our national economy are the business of the Congress. We would not have stepped in before, and I would not be offering this legislation were this not the case. FASB has acknowledged that to us, that they are in charge of accounting rules; but they do not take into consideration the economic impacts.

So I urge my colleagues to look at this carefully. There are many, many complications to this. More than anything else, this is not for corporate executives. This is for rank-and-file employees who take a risk in start-up

companies and say that when the risk is realized in a positive way that everyone wins. Let us protect that, especially at a time where our national economy needs to protect something that we know works.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for yielding me this time.

I am very proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of this bill. My partner, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker), the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) before him, and colleagues from both sides of the aisle, this is a true bipartisan effort: over 100 cosponsors, including leadership from the Democratic side, our distinguished leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), as well as from the Republican side. This is not a partisan issue, nor should it be.

What this debate is about is not simply the grays and the green eye shade issues of accounting. What stands front and center in this issue is the American economy and how we continue to spur it. There are three major ingredients that other countries around the world have come to understand because they have studied it, and it has been part of our success: venture capital, the protection of intellectual property, and stock options. Why stock options? Because it is a magnet that attracts workers to a company; and with that magnet it is stated, yes, we are willing to take a risk and make this company grow. And when we do, we will all share in the rewards. That is intrinsically American.

Now, have there been people who have abused stock options at the top? Sadly, that was the case. And the Congress stepped in because the SEC needed us to step in. The SEC did not do what it was supposed to do, and the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation was passed. So in terms of the debate, leave the SEC alone, leave the FASB alone, we should not interfere, we should not step in, that case is absolutely blown by having adopted Sarbanes-Oxley.

The FASB has put out an accounting standard. They understand that they have nothing to do with the economy, and they are proud of saying that. The Congress does have a responsibility for anything that impinges on our economy. There are institutional investors in this country that are not interested in individual stakes and shareholders. That is all right; it is the view that they hold.

So this debate today, and make no mistake about it, listen carefully, this is about protecting a tool that has paid off for rank-and-file workers across the country. This is not only about high technology and biotechnology. In fact, most of the stock option holders' rank-and-file are outside of those two industries, and they represent 14.6 million workers in our country.

Now why expense the people at the top? Because they come to their compensation package differently. Rank-and-file workers do not negotiate with a board of directors; the top five in the company do. This is balanced. This is important. This is essential. Do not wreck one of the most valuable tools that we have in our country today to expand our economy, to expand new businesses and to have a stake in the future of America. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3574.

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to be the lead Democratic sponsor of the Stock Option Accounting Reform Act, and thank Chairman Baker for his leadership, moving it through the Financial Services Committee with such strong support. The legislation is urgently needed to avert the implementation of new accounting rules that would have a disastrous impact on American companies, and more importantly, American workers.

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has long threatened to require stock options to be deducted from a company's earnings, and this bill would prevent FASB from implementing this requirement for many critical reasons. Mandatory expensing of stock options would have a terrible impact on companies that rely on options to recruit and retain the most talented employees. Without stock options, many of these companies--including some of the most successful high-tech and biotech firms--would not even exist today.

Stock options have become associated with corporate scandals and excessive executive compensation, leading to a call for expensing as the ultimate prescription for these problems. But stock options were not the cause of the recent corporate accounting scandals, and eliminating stock options would do nothing to instill corporate responsibility or accountability. The crimes committed at Enron, Tyco, and other companies would not have been prevented if expensing was the accounting rule of the day.

The Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, which I was proud to support, was passed to prevent future corporate swindles. If companies are forced to expense stock options, most will drop broad-based option plans because of the prospect of taking a huge and misleading charge against their bottom line in accounting statements.

Make no mistake about it. Stock option plans or some other form of lucrative compensation for senior executives will undoubtedly continue to be offered. Consider this: Only a small portion of employee-held options--about 15 percent--are held by corporate management. 14.6 million American workers--13 percent of private-sector workers nationwide--held stock options in 2002.

It's ironic that many are calling for the expensing of stock options in order to reign in executive compensation, when expensing stock options would do little to accomplish this. Rather rank and file employees would be the ones to lose, because they don't get to negotiate with a Board of Directors for their compensation package.

H.R. 3574 also answers many of the critics of stock options who maintain (wrongly) that this compensation is an ``executive perk'' and a tool to avoid reporting executive salaries. The Stock Option Accounting Reform Act requires companies to expense options granted to the CEO and the next four highest paid officers. Small businesses are exempted from this requirement and cannot be required to expense options for the 3 years following an initial public offering.

The bill would also enact new disclosure rules for companies who offer stock options, requiring them to disclose additional information regarding share value dilution and other stock option-related information.

Some have also argued that FASB's independence must be protected and accounting standards--like other technical rules--should not be set by Congress. While in general this is the case, there are many occasions when expert bodies fail to fully protect the public interest and it's incumbent on Congress to step in. For example, the Securities and Exchange Commission--an independent, expert agency--failed to adequately protect investors and the public from the corporate scandals of recent years: Congress stepped in to enact the reforms of Sarbanes- Oxley.

Recently, a ``determination on drug safety'' was made by the Food and Drug Administration which found that the morning-after birth control pill was not safe enough to approve for over-the-counter sale, despite ample evidence to the contrary. I would hope that if the FDA does not change its position on the morning-after pill, we will act to overturn this decision as well.

Even the Chairman of FASB recently acknowledged that the Board has proceeded too quickly and the implementation of the new expensing rules may need to be delayed. H.R. 3574 would simply ensure that the rules are not implemented for at least a year, pending economic impact studies by the Commerce and Labor Departments.

Given the radical change the new rules would establish and the potentially devastating impact on employee ownership programs, Congress has the responsibility to make sure that these rules are appropriate and implemented responsibly. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and protect broad-based employee ownership programs.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and let me state very clearly why. Number one, this amendment allows the SEC to override what the Congress wants. I think that stands our process on its head. And I am not suggesting that our process is always perfect and tidy. I thought that when I came here that when the Congress legislates and the executive signs on to that and a bill becomes law that it is up to the executive branch of government to carry that out.

We have gotten nowhere with this accounting board. They do not want to sit down and hear the other side of this, which is economic. And so that is why I urge my colleagues to reject the amendment.

It essentially guts the bill. If you are opposed to stock options for rank-and-file employees, be opposed to that; but to do this the other way around, I think really begs the question.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for the time, and Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out a few things here about the substitute.

First of all, obviously I respect the gentleman from Pennsylvania, but I do not support the substitute, and let me tell my colleagues why.

There was a chart that was here on the floor a little earlier of companies that expense. I wish we had a chart on the floor that demonstrated that those companies that do do not offer stock options to their rank-and-file employees.

This debate is not about the venture capitalists. They are going to make their investments. They are going to pick and choose. But this is a magnet that attracts individuals to form new companies to allow them to grow and bring them up to profitability. We want to destroy this? Well, it is going to be in the hands of the Congress to do that. That is what this debate is about.

Those that have problems with executive compensation have problems with it. Talk to the board of directors that form those packages, but rank-and-file employees do not get to negotiate their compensation or those packages. That is why their stock options are so important.

This substitute does not address FASB's failure to develop accurate expensing formulas. They are unwilling to even road-test the standards that they are talking about.

Now, I think that that is really unfair. That is why, as a Member of Congress, I stepped in. I think we should, and I think it is appropriate because we do have a responsibility to answer to the American people about economics and economic impacts on our people.

That is why I urge my colleagues to reject and to vote against the Kanjorski substitute. It was rejected in the committee and it should be on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to support the Project Bioshield Act which encourages the development of new countermeasures to deal with diseases and conditions caused by bioterrorism attacks. It authorizes $5.6 billion over 10 years for purchasing countermeasures, such as vaccines and treatments, to bioterrorist attacks. The bill also allows the government, in the event of a national emergency involving a bioterrorism or similar attack, to distribute to the public certain drugs and treatments that have not yet been approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA).

The Project Bioshield Act is an important part of our mission to secure and protect our homeland and hometowns. The threat of chemical, biological and radiological attacks is too great and this bill provides necessary regulatory flexibility to the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Health and Human Services so they can speed and promote research and development of needed countermeasures.

The September 11th tragedies and subsequent anthrax attacks made the Nation aware that the public health system is ill-prepared to mange a large scale emergency. Since then, our public health system has continued to respond to high profile threats like severe acute respiratory syndromes (SARS) and West Nile Virus which illustrate how quickly infections can spread among populations and across the globe.

Over the last 3 years, our eyes have been opened to the threats we face on our own soil. We've discovered serious vulnerabilities and I'm proud of what we've done in this bill to address them. I urge the entire House to vote for this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who has been a wonderful supporter of our effort that has been stretched out over 4 years.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the underlying bill. It is an excellent one, and I commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for their bipartisan leadership of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development. But I rise to urge the defeat of the previous question on the rule, because the rule does not provide a waiver for the amendments to address market manipulation and require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to take action to refund consumers' dollars that were manipulated.

I testified before the Committee on Rules yesterday that this amendment be made in order, but the request was denied.

I think the word ``denial'' pretty well sums up the response of Congressional Republicans and the FERC to the western energy crimes. In 2000 and 2001, FERC essentially allowed energy producers to game and corrupt the western energy market, and consumers were gouged billions of dollars. In March 2001, Congressional Democrats wrote to the President for help and we are still waiting for the reply.

In 2002, Democratic Members of the California delegation asked six times for a Congressional investigation and hearings on market manipulation. It never happened. In 2003, we tried to address the refunds issue with amendments to the Energy Policy Act. Nothing happened.

Over 4 years we have tried everything we could to help consumers in the Pacific Northwest and California. This work is summarized in a five-page document which, Mr. Speaker, I include for the record.

The House must consider this amendment today because we are running out of opportunities to right the wrongs which created the crimes itself. This amendment will first amend the Federal Power Act by changing the rules for refunds effective dates under Section 206. Currently, these rules allow refunds after a complaint has been filed. This amendment will allow refunds for all overcharges regardless of when a complaint has been filed. This change will require FERC to order refunds for the gouging that occurred in the West and elsewhere in the Nation in 2000 and 2001.

Two, it requires FERC to open new investigations, if necessary, to award refunds to western consumers.

Three, it requires the FERC to step in to order refunds whenever manipulation occurs in the future in any State in our country.

Four, it requires the FERC to allow California to participate in heretofore secret negotiations between FERC and power producers who were thought to have engaged in market manipulation. And lastly, it requires the FERC to make public all documents that it is holding related to the manipulation of the western energy market in 2000 and 2001.

And let there be no doubt, there were wrongs. The Enron tapes which CBS broadcast earlier this month make it all too clear that companies were manipulating the market. They bragged about stealing money from ``those poor grandmothers in California.''

Some of the language was so profane that by congressional action it was deemed it could not be broadcast. The language was shocking and the facts in the transcripts chilling. They are part of a litany of evidence of widespread market manipulation.

There are smoking gun memos in which Enron admitted how they gamed the market. They had names for each one of their undertakings. We have transcripts of employees of Reliant Energy describing how they gamed the market; and with that striking evidence, FERC chose to negotiate a settlement in this case for pennies on the

dollar without allowing California to participate.

We have reams of evidence discovered by the State of California. We have the Justice Department's indictments and plea agreements with many energy traders and producers. Even the FERC found ``significant market manipulation.'' But, despite the evidence, the FERC has been reluctant to order refunds to compensate consumers even though it has the obligation to protect energy consumers of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 4 long years since the crisis began. Consumers have been waiting for relief. We think they deserve it and they should have it. I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question and allow this amendment to come to the floor.

Congressional Activity To Address the Energy Crisis--Chronology

Highlights

2000

June 14, 2000--First blackout of the electricity crisis and

first blackout in California since World War II.

August 2, 2000--San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E)

files a complaint under Rule 206 under the Federal Power Act

against western power suppliers, alleging that market prices

are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' Calls on the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) to impose price limits.

November 1, 2000--FERC reports that wholesale electricity

prices have been and have the potential to continue to be

``unjust and unreasonable.''

2001

January 19, 2001--25 members of the California delegation

write to FERC to urge it to address the high price of

electricity in California.

January 20, 2001--Representatives Duncan Hunter and Anna G.

Eshoo introduce H.R. 238 to amend the Department of Energy

Authorization Act to authorize the Secretary of Energy to

impose interim limitations on the cost of electric energy to

protect consumers from unjust and unreasonable prices in the

electric energy market. A bipartisan group of thirty-two

Western Members cosponsor the bill. Senate companion (S. 26)

introduced by Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer on

January 22, 2001.

January 30, 2001--Representative Bob Filner introduces H.R.

268, the California Electricity Consumers Relief Act, that

requires FERC to order refunds retroactive to the beginning

of the crisis on June 1, 2000.

March 2, 2001--Representatives Hunter and Eshoo write to

House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin and

House Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee Chairman Joe Barton

to call for a hearing on the Western energy crisis and H.R.

238.

March 6, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality

holds hearing--Congressional Perspectives on Electricity

Markets in California and the West and National Energy

Policy.

March 20 and 22, 2001--House Subcommittee on Energy and Air

Quality holds hearing--``Electricity Markets: California.''

March 22, 2001--House Democrats write to President Bush to

urge him to fill FERC vacancies, to call on FERC to

investigate and mitigate high electricity prices in

California, and to replace FERC Chair Curtis Hebert. No reply

is received from the President.

March 23, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee respond to the majority's request for

comments on proposed legislation to ``fix'' problems in the

Western energy market. Members note the omission of any

provision to address the excessively high cost of

electricity. No formal reply is received.

March 30, 2001--Democratic Members from California,

Washington, and Oregon write to President Bush to urge him to

address the high cost of wholesale electricity and

``investigate recent allegations of overcharges'' in the

Western energy market. No substantive reply is received from

the President.

April 4, 2001--H.R. 1468 is introduced with the support of

30 California Democrats. The bill requires the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service pricing in

the Western electricity market and to order the refund of

overcharges.

April 10, 2001--U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham

writes to Members of Congress to update them on the

Administration's efforts to address the energy crisis. The

Secretary discounts the crisis as ``a supply crisis'' and

states the Administration's opposition to price mitigation.

April 16, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee write to FERC Commissioner Linda K.

Breathitt to urge her to support cost-of-service pricing in

the West.

April 26, 2001--FERC issues an order establishing a price

mitigation plan during stage 1, 2, and 3 power emergencies.

The order sets the mitigated price on the most inefficient,

polluting generator in the State. Generators can exceed the

mitigated price if they justify their costs.

May 1 and 3, 2001--House Energy and Air Quality

Subcommittee holds hearing on H.R. 1647, The Electricity

Emergency Act of 2001--a bill with the purported purpose of

solving the energy crisis by increasing the supply of

electricity. Among other proposals, the bill calls for the

suspension of federal environmental laws that might diminish

energy production. California Governor Gray Davis and the

California Energy Commission and Air Resources Board report

that environmental protection laws are not an impediment to

energy production. The bill does not address runaway prices.

May 1, 2001--Members of the California Republican

Delegation meet with Vice President Dick Cheney on the energy

crisis. California Democrats are not invited.

May 3, 2001--California Democratic Congressional Delegation

Chair Sam Farr writes Vice President Cheney criticizing him

for excluding California Democrats from his May 1, 2001

meeting with California Republicans. Rep. Farr requests a

meeting with the Vice President.

May 4, 2001--44 Democratic Members of Congress write to

Secretary Abraham to use his authority to address price

gouging in the West. Reply reiterating the Administration's

opposition to ``price caps'' mailed July 2, 2001.

May 17, 2001--Vice President Cheney and the National Energy

Policy Development Group (NEPDG) submit their recommendations

to President Bush. The recommendations do not include

anything to address runaway prices in the West. About the

Western energy crisis, the NEPDG writes, ``Though weather

conditions and design flaws in California's electricity

restructuring plan contributed, the California electricity

crisis is at heart a supply crisis'' (National Energy Policy,

page 1-3). The report blames California for not building

enough generating plants, ``there are no short-term solutions

to long-term neglect.''

May 25, 2001--84 Democratic Members of the House write

President Bush to request that he back a price mitigation

amendment to H.R. 1647 based on H.R. 1468. No reply is

received from the President.

May 25, 2001--Ten respected economists, including Alfred

Kahn, architect of deregulation in the airline industry,

write to President Bush and the Congressional leadership to

express support for cost-of-service based rates for

electricity in the western market.

June 2, 2001--Rep. Eshoo delivers the Democratic response

to the President's weekly radio address on the energy crisis.

June 7, 2001--21 Western Democrats write to FERC Chairman

Curtis Hebert to request the opportunity to testify before

the Commission in a public meeting.

June 12, 2001--California Democratic Congressional

Delegation meets with Vice President Cheney about the energy

crisis. Vice President promises no intervention to alleviate

high prices.

June 13, 2001--29 members of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation write to Vice President Cheney

following a CNN report that the White House and Congressional

Republicans funded an advertising campaign to oppose price

mitigation in the West.

June 19, 2001--FERC expands its April 26th order to cover

the entire West during all hours of operation, requires all

generators to make their power available, and continues to

base the mitigated price on the least efficient generator.

FERC determines that refunds are owed and orders

administrative hearings to determine the amount.

June 19, 2001--Members of the California and Western

delegations testify before the House Rules Committee in

support of amendments to H.R. 2246, the Fiscal Year 2001

Supplemental Appropriations bill. The amendments would

require FERC to impose cost-of-service pricing in the West

and order electricity generators to pay refunds of rates that

are ``unjust and unreasonable.'' The Rules Committee, chaired

by California Republican David Dreier, refuses to allow the

consideration of these amendments.

June 20, 2001--Representative Nancy Pelosi attempts to

bring a cost-of-service amendment to H.R. 2246 to the floor.

Republicans block it on a procedural objection.

June 20, 2001--Governor Gray Davis, with many Members of

the California Congressional Delegation in attendance,

testifies before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee

about FERC's activities in the Western energy market.

June 30, 2001--California Democratic Congressional

Delegation writes to FERC Chairman Curtis Hebert about 32

important California-related cases that were pending before

the Commission for an extended period of time. Reply dated

August 28, 2001.

July 17 and 18, 2001--House Energy and Commerce Committee

holds markup of the Committee Print, Energy Advancement and

Conservation Act. Committee defeats two amendments offered by

the California Democrats on the Committee to impose cost-of-

service pricing and require the refund of overcharges.

August 1, 2001--Floor consideration of H.R. 4, Securing

America's Future Energy. House defeats Rep. Waxman's cost-of-

service pricing amendment by 157-274. The Rules Committee

refuses to make in order an amendment offered by

Representatives Eshoo and Harman to require refunds of

overcharges.

October 29, 2001--Rep. Eshoo testifies before a FERC

technical conference on behalf of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation. Requests that the Commission's

price mitigation plan remain in force until the market has

stabilized. Asks the Commission to act quickly in ordering

refunds.

November 27, 2001--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee write to Energy and Air Quality

Subcommittee Chairman Barton to urge him to address the

problem of market power in energy markets within draft

electricity restructuring legislation. No reply is received.

2002

February 14, 2002--Members of the California Delegation

write to House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Tauzin

to urge him to investigate and hold hearings on the business

conduct and pricing practices of Enron during the Western

energy crisis.

May 8, 2002--The California Democratic Congressional

Delegation and 4 Northwestern Democrats write Chairman

Tauzin, urging him to open an investigation and to hold

hearings on market manipulation in the Western energy market

after FERC posts internal Enron memos detailing how the

company artificially inflated prices. Memos indicate that

other companies adopted the same practices that Enron did.

May 9, 2002--The Securities and Exchange Commission

announces investigation into the ``round-trip'' trades

between Dynegy, an energy marketer that sold into the

California market, and CMS Energy of Dearborn, Michigan.

May 15-16, 2002--Senate Consumer Affairs, Foreign Commerce,

& Tourism Subcommittee holds hearing on Enron memos entitled,

``Examining Enron: Developments Regarding Electricity Price

Manipulation in California.'' Rep. Eshoo and Harman attend.

The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee holds a

similar hearing.

June 5, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee lead 75 House Members, including Minority

Leader Gephardt, in a letter to House Speaker Hastert and

Energy and Commerce Chairman Tauzin to ask for an

investigation of energy suppliers.

June 5, 2002--31 California Democrats write to FERC

Chairman Patrick Wood to urge him to extend FERC's price

mitigation plan for the West beyond September 30, 2002 when

it is due to expire.

June 18, 2002--The General Accounting office issues a

report that exposes weaknesses in FERC's ability to regulate

energy markets. The report says, ``FERC is not adequately

performing the oversight that is needed to ensure that the

price produced by [energy] markets are just and reasonable

and therefore, it is not fulfilling its regulatory mandate.''

June 19, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a

hearing and investigations, noting that the GAO report

indicates that FERC is not up to doing the job on its own.

June 20, 2002--Congress Daily AM reports, ``House

Republicans agreed [June 19, 2002] to hold a hearing to

examine whether trading firms such as Enron Corp., may have

illegally manipulated electricity prices in the West.'' The

article continued, ``The hearing would serve as a spring

board for a broader inquiry into price manipulation and

FERC's ability to oversee the Market [Energy and Commerce

Committee Chairman] Tauzin said.''

July 25, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy and

Commerce Committee write to Chairman Tauzin again to urge a

hearing and investigations, noting that he has not fulfilled

his public promise a month earlier to hold hearings and

investigate energy transactions in the West. The letter notes

that this work should be completed before Chairman moves

ahead with the consideration of electricity provisions in the

House-Senate Conference Committee on H.R. 4, the

comprehensive energy bill. Finally, the letter asks for

access to documents that Committee obtained from FERC. The

documents had been compiled by FERC as a part of an

investigation that it initiated following inquiries from U.S.

Senators.

July 26, 2002--Chairman Tauzin responds to the Western

Representatives May 8, 2002 letter with a recitation of the

Committee's previous work on the Western energy crisis in

2001. The Chairman notes that he requested and received the

documents he received from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (FERC), which were being reviewed by majority and

minority staffs. However, he does not explain why the

Committee has not held a hearing since the Enron ``smoking

gun'' memos were made public. The Chairman does not respond

to the request for access to the FERC documents.

August 21, 2002--California Democrats on the House Energy

and Commerce Committee respond to Chairman Tauzin's letter,

and again ask for a serious, independent investigation of the

Western Energy market. The letter reiterates the request for

access to FERC documents obtained by the Committee.

2003

January 9, 2003--The California Democratic Congressional

Delegation writes to the Chairman of the Federal Regulatory

Energy Commission (FERC) Patrick Wood, III, to reject the

findings of Administrative Law Judge Bruce Birchman (Refund

Case EL00-95-045) because he recommended that energy

generators who supplied power to California during the 2000-

2001 energy crisis owe far less than the $8.9 billion that

California is seeking.

March 3, 2003--The California parties (including the

Governor and the Attorney General of California, the

California Public Utilities Commission, and the state's major

independently-owned utilities) present to the Commission more

than 1,000 pages of evidence of widespread market power abuse

and market manipulation. The California parties had to go to

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to force the Commission to

allow them to discover and present this evidence.

March 26, 2003--The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

(FERC) released a detailed report on the California Energy

crisis, concluding that there was widespread manipulation in

the California energy market. However, FERC did not propose

increasing refunds substantially to reflect the gaming that

took place. In particular, FERC continued to insist that the

State of California could not receive refunds on the short-

term electricity purchases it made to keep the lights on.

April 2, 2003--During the Energy and Commerce Committee

markup of the Energy Policy Act (H.R. 6) Rep. Eshoo offers an

amendment to increase the refunds for California consumers by

$5 billion. The amendment simply required the Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (FERC) to refund all ``unjust and

unreasonable'' charges the State of California incurred for

the short-term energy purchases it made to keep the lights on

during the California energy crisis in 2001. The amendment

failed on a vote of 21 to 30 in the Energy and Commerce

Committee. Rep. Eshoo, supported by the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation, attempts to bring the amendment to

the floor for consideration several days later but not one

California Republican would support the amendment and it

wasn't considered.

September 25, 2003--31 Members of the California Democratic

Congressional Delegation write to FERC Chairman Wood

reiterating previous concerns that FERC is having a poor

record in defending the interests of California consumers,

lacks an effective price mitigation plan, refuses to order

the renegotiation of unjust and unreasonable long-term

contracts, and has thus far short-changed consumers in the

refund proceedings.

2004

May 6, 2004--An amicus brief is filed at the 9th Circuit

Court regarding FERC and California energy refunds signed by

37 parties: California's 2 Senators, 33 House California

Democrats, State Senate President Pro Tem John Burton, and

State Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez. The brief supports the

California parties' lawsuit that FERC follow the Court's

order to use the existing Remedy Proceeding--a forum subject

to judicial review--to collect evidence of energy market

manipulation, rather than non-public investigatory

proceedings that shut CA consumers out of the process.

June 2, 2004--CBS News broadcasts tapes unearthed by

Snohomish Public Utility District which capture Enron traders

bragging in profane terms about their effort to manipulate

the Western Energy Market.

June 14, 2004--All 33 California House Democrats write to

FERC to request that it address the issues raised by the

Enron tapes.

June 15, 2004--The House defeats motion to recommit H.R.

4305, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, 192-230 (Roll Call Vote

240). The motion would have added language to the bill that

will enable California consumers to receive equitable

refunds.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding me this time.

Since my friend from California would not yield any time, I just would like to set this down for the record. The amendment relative to the previous question this morning had solutions in it. We are now in the year 2004. We do not need any more debates about the markets. The energy companies have essentially signed confession slips on this. So let us not go back to 1999. We now have evidence.

That is why we are saying the FERC should order refunds. The gentleman, by voting for the previous question, he turned down the solution of refunds. Let us make that very clear here this morning.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

This is a very simple and clear amendment and it states that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to deny requests for the public release of documents or evidence obtained through or in the western energy markets.

What brings this amendment, the intent of this amendment, and why we are making it, Mr. Chairman, is really very clear. There are mounds of evidence relative to the manipulation of energy and the energy markets in the Pacific Northwest and in California between 2000 and 2001. We need to secure what is there. There is so much evidence that is being withheld. That is why we bring this amendment forward.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the very distinct minority leader of the House.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

(Ms. BERKLEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Madam Chairman, we made our presentation. The gentleman was complimentary of how the presentation was made and of the substance and the last thing he said was, I cannot support this amendment. That is what he said.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

I asked that the Committee on Rules waive in order for the amendment to be accepted.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Davis), for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

(Mrs. DAVIS of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to make a closing statement.

Madam Chairman, I thank all of my colleagues that have fought so hard and so courageously for 4 years.

Madam Chairman, this is an issue about greed, greed gone absolutely

wild; and the victims of the greed, this insatiable greed for money, money, money, money, money, are the people of my State of California, the people of the State of Washington, the people of the State of Oregon, the people of the State of Nevada.

I have heard some really outrageous things here today. You, my friends, have been given the power by the people of the United States of America to hold the majority here. For 4 years we have fought. Not one hearing was even granted in the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

We have presented solutions for restitution to our people, for refunds, and have been denied over and over and over again. So there has not only been an abuse of power by the power companies, but by the majority party in this House.

Now we have come forward and requested last evening at the Committee on Rules that all points be waived in order to present an amendment for refunds. That was denied. Now the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) has allowed this limited amendment that we now have on the floor.

Make no mistake, not one Republican from the State of California supported in 4 years a refund to our people. This legislation has been there. We have sent Dear Colleague letters. I will not yield, because I waited 4 years for this moment, and this is for our constituents. They have not used their power to bring about restitution to them.

How much more evidence do you need? You have heard the tapes. It is not just about being upset about the evidence. It is up to us, those who have been vested with the power, to do something on behalf of the consumer. It is not enough to say our constituents have been hurt. Use the power. Use the power to override the power of the power companies that manipulated, that extracted, and then bragged about it.

Shame on anyone that would not stand next to the grandmother that these people referred to and were so gleeful about picking her pockets. Shame on them. Shame on anyone that does not fight every day to make good for these people.

These are the extraordinary, ordinary people of our country. That is who we stand next to. We invite you to finally do something, to take one tiny step, if you have it in you, to do that.

The White House turned us down, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission turned us down, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce turned us down over and over and over again.

So I say to those that stand next to the consumer, no matter how frustrating, no matter how dark it has been, let us do something about it. We have had the solution. We come forward now with a very small one.

I thank everyone that has been part of the effort. You have been absolutely magnificent. And I am proud to serve with those that, even in the worst of times, sought to do something about it. It is what people sent us here for. Do not forget that. That is what our power is for. Not for Enron, not for Reliant, not for people that commit criminal activities against those that send us here to stand up for them.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) for allowing this to be brought to the floor and debated.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Ms. Eshoo

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following: