Floor Statements

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add the following Senators as cosponsors of my amendment: Senators Kennedy, Bingaman, Murray, Boxer, Akaka, Clinton, Sarbanes, and Feinstein.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this important amendment sponsored by myself, the Senator from Florida, and others, which restores essential funding for education and job training in America.

Job training should be our first priority, not our last priority. American workers want to learn new skills, and businesses are looking for skilled workers. So it would be a terrible decision today to deny them the opportunity to provide job training so that they can go back to work. But that is exactly what we are doing in this omnibus bill today. In fact, this bill is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 funding level. That is a 10-percent cut in the fiscal year 2002 level after the Senate Appropriations Committee voted last year to increase that number to a higher amount. My amendment restores the original committee level.

Some would argue that these funds have no material impact because they would like to say that fiscal year 2002 funds that haven't yet been distributed could also be used to offset this cut that is being proposed by the administration. That is like saying there is a magic slush fund for job training when there isn't. The fact is that job training dollars--because the programs continue for several years--are committed over a 2- or 3-year period of time. That is how they make the programs effective. In fact, if this amendment does not pass today and we do not make a decision to restore these cuts, over 65,000 job training opportunities will be lost in America.

To further bolster this notion of the fact that these cuts really will take effect and have full impact, I point out to my colleague the GAO study on this very issue on whether the States were spending their workforce investment dollars. In fact, quoting from the report, it said:

States are spending their funds faster than required by

law. And even though 44 percent of the program funds for year

2001 are being carried over to 2002, many of these funds have

already been committed. Furthermore, because of reporting

inconsistencies, the Department of Labor data do not

adequately reflect the funds and how they have been obligated

in long-term commitments.

What does this mean? It means that GAO is saying there is no magic slush fund. If we make this cut today, we will actually see a cut in reduction in programs.

Some of my colleagues ask: What is so serious about that? Maybe we need a little belt tightening. I point out to my colleagues that we are going through rough economic times. Actually retraining workers who are then rehired by a company to add to their bottom-line profitability is a good economic stimulus package. As Stephanie Powers, CEO of the National Association of Workforce Boards, wrote me:

We strongly agree with the GAO's report and we support

maintaining current funding levels. We are on the front line

of serving over 2.3 million workers who have lost their jobs

over the last two years, and this cut would dramatically

impede our ability to meet these services at a very

critical time.

If there is a silver lining to this economic recession we have been in, it is the fact that there are companies and there are businesses that say they still want to hire workers but can't find the skilled workers they need.

Take the health care industry, for example. The American Hospital Association estimates that there are currently over 126,000 unfilled nursing positions in the country. Why would we take money away from the training programs to retrain individuals who have lost their jobs and who could go into nursing to give their families an income and give the health care industry the workers they need?

While we are facing tough economic times, we are also simply facing a skills gap. The best way to deal with that skills gap is to give the dislocated workers the opportunity to improve their skills. That is why, given the high unemployment rate, and the unemployment claims just last week increasing by 18,000 and over 2 million people having lost their jobs in the last 2 years, this amendment would actually be the economic stimulus we are looking for.

I don't think job training is a political issue or a partisan issue. In fact, last year I was enthused by the fact that a majority of Members of the Senate signed a letter asking the Senate Appropriators to increase funding for Job Training Programs. Of those Senators who signed the letter, I want to read from it and quote that they said:

We are writing to express our support for increasing the

funding for 2003. The ability of a skilled workforce is

critical to our Nation's economy and will provide the

adequate support for job training. We are concerned that the

unemployment landscape may not turn around rapidly and that

these displaced workers will not be able to return to their

former jobs. Many of them need to prepare for new jobs in the

workforce.

If the same colleagues who signed this letter will vote for this amendment today, we can put this issue to rest and give the American workers the kind of job training and skills they need.

This amendment will accomplish a stimulus for our economy that is much needed. It will make sure that we don't say no to workers and no to the businesses that are looking for help, and it will make sure that we will say yes to tomorrow's economic opportunities for all of us. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Larry Craig, which I am proud to cosponsor along with the entire Northwest delegation. This amendment would provide an additional $700 million in borrowing authority for the Bonneville Power Administration, BPA, which will allow the agency to make much-needed improvements in our region's transmission grid, modernizing lines and reducing bottlenecks. The borrowing authority will also allow BPA to fund new conservation and renewable energy initiatives and make improvements at existing hydroelectric facilities, to make them more efficient and fish friendly.

This amendment is consistent with current law, advances many of our shared, bipartisan energy policy goals, and represents a sound investment for U.S. taxpayers. I would also point out to my colleagues that this amendment is similar to legislation passed as part of the Senate energy bill last spring, which contained $1.3 billion in additional BPA borrowing authority. Further, it is consistent with the President's budget request for Fiscal Year 2003, which provided $700 million for this purpose.

The Bonneville Power Administration--created in 1937 under the Bonneville Project Act--has historically been one of the primary economic engines of the Pacific Northwest. Today, BPA owns and operates 75 percent of the high-voltage transmission system in the region, consistent with principles of non-discriminatory open access. My colleagues may be interested to learn that among BPA's various statutory responsibilities included in the Pacific Northwest Power Planning and Conservation Act of 1980 is that the agency must ``assure the Pacific Northwest of an adequate, efficient, economical and reliable power supply.''

Even more specifically, the Federal Columbia River Transmission System Act of 1974 stipulates that the BPA Administrator ``shall operate and maintain the Federal transmission system within the Pacific Northwest and shall construct improvements, betterments, and additions and replacements of such system within the Pacific Northwest as he determines are appropriate and required to: . . . maintain the electrical stability and electrical reliability of the Federal system . . .''

The additional borrowing authority provided in this amendment will enable Bonneville to uphold these crucial responsibilities. It is also important to note that this infrastructure investment is one for which U.S. taxpayers would be repayed, with interest. As my colleagues may know, BPA makes payment to the U.S. Treasury on an annual basis--from revenues it collects from northwest ratepayers. BPA expenditures thus do not place any long-term burden on appropriated or trust fund activities. Indeed, the principal on all BPA capital-borrowing costs is fully repaid, with legally-required, market-determined interest.

Like most of the country, transmission investment in the northwest has lagged behind demand. No major new transmission lines have been constructed in our region since 1987. In the meantime, Northwest loads have been growing steadily at a rate of 1.8 percent per year. This load growth, combined with deregulation of wholesale power markets, has given rise to a 2 percent per year rise in traffic on the transmission system.

In addition, the Northwest Power Pool has estimated that winter peak load will have grown from 59,972 megawatts in 1998 to 66,952 megawatts by 2008 or, by 12 percent. But at the present rate of transmission investment--without the improvements this amendment will allow--the system will have grown from only 61,415 circuit miles in 1998 to 62,325 circuit miles in 2008--or, by 2 percent. In short, regional transmission is not keeping up with load growth.

To remedy this situation--and in keeping with its statutory obligations--BPA has identified 26 groups of needed transmission projects, for construction and energization over the next 5 to 6 years. The first nine, some of which are already underway, would address the most critically constrained pathways in our area.

The construction of additional transmission will reduce existing bottlenecks, reinforce the system to assure minimal conformance with reliability standards for major load centers such as Seattle, Portland and Spokane, and ultimately allow the integration of more than 5,000 megawatts of new generation. I would also like to point out that this amendment will aid in the acquisition of new conservation and renewable energy sources, as well as make capital improvements on the 31-project federal hydroelectric system--all of which are extremely important components of BPA's multi-faceted public purposes.

This amendment will enhance the reliability of the northwest electricity grid--and, by extension, the western transmission system as a whole. It is consistent with the missions this body set out for the Bonneville Power Administration, dating back to 1937 and in the legislative history spanning the 66 intervening years. And it represents good energy policy today, which is why FERC Chairman Pat Wood--in hearings before the Senate Energy Committee last year--voiced his strong support for an increase in BPA borrowing authority.

I thank Senator Craig for bringing this amendment to the floor today, as well as all of my Northwest colleagues. I believe it has been a tremendous team effort that has spanned both a couple of years and the jurisdictions of the Senate Energy, Budget and of course Appropriations Committees. I would also like to thank the Chairmen and Ranking Members of those Committees for their support today.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the 30th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision.

Thirty years ago, in 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion. That decision, Roe v. Wade, was carefully crafted to be both balanced and responsible while holding the rights of women in America paramount in reproductive decisions. Roe v. Wade held that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, but after viability, States can ban abortions as long as they allow exceptions when a woman's life or health is endangered. Since then, while the Court has consistently ruled in favor of this right, there is no doubt that this right is being eroded.

And today, the thirtieth anniversary of that landmark decision, I especially want to thank those who are continuing to provide safe and legal reproductive health care to the women of our community. In the face of crippling challenges, especially violence and threats of violence, these health care workers have held fast in their commitment to provide the quality health care that all women deserve.

Like most Americans, I believe that we must work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and family planning. But I also believe that our Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy, and that this constitutional right encompasses the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy.

Unfortunately, we are seeing a concerted effort by those who seek to overturn this right to stack our courts with ideological conservatives who seek not only to weaken the right to make personal decisions about one's own body, but also to make exercising that right a criminal offense. As a Senator, I take my responsibility to advise and consent on nominees to the Federal judiciary extremely seriously. While I recognize the privilege of the President to select his nominees, I believe it is critical that we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of each nominee, since, unlike members of the President's cabinet and other executive branch appointees, Federal judges receive lifetime appointments, and are expected to interpret our Nation's laws in a fair and balanced manner.

I am especially concerned that President Bush has chosen to renominate several extremists on this issue, especially Priscilla Owen. Her record demonstrates that, as a member of the strongly conservative Texas Supreme Court, she was an activist judge, interpreting the law to fit her ideological ends. Indeed, while President Bush's current White House Counsel was serving on the Texas Supreme Court, then-Justice Alberto Gonzales called one of her rulings ``an unconscionable act of judicial activism.''

Many of my colleagues and I spend much of our time, and must continue to do so, defending the actual right to have an abortion. But in my mind, the easiest way to reduce the number of abortions is to prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. And I simply don't understand why so many anti-choice members don't understand that connection.

Studies show that the use of family planning reduces the probability of a woman having an abortion by 85 percent. Unfortunately, the U.S. still has 3 million unintended pregnancies each year in the United States, half of which end in abortion. This is why I support the Equity in Prescription Contraceptive Coverage Act, authored by Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, and why I will be cosponsoring that bill when she reintroduces it.

The women in the Senate are in a unique position to fight against the erosion of Roe. I stand with them today to honor those who came before me in fighting for this right. Together we will continue to make sure that the women of America have the right to privacy, and the fundamental freedom of choice in our lives.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of this amendment to provide much-needed assistance to our Nation's low-income families. The amendment before us today would use $300 million in contingency funds included in the fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations bill be provide additional money for states struggling to keep pace with demand for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

The Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, provides critical aid to many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. According to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association, as many as 5 million households received LIHEAP assistance during fiscal year 2001--the last year for which such data is available.

Since then, of course, the need for this program has grown almost exponentially. In many places--particularly in the western part of our country--the downturn in our nation's economy has conspired with soaring retail energy costs to create record-breaking demand for LIHEAP dollars.

I want to explain to my colleagues precisely why this amendment is so important to so many families in my state. On a number of previous occasions--during debate on the Senate energy bill, at various junctures during the Western energy crisis and the ensuing investigations of Enron and others--I have spoken on this floor about the Bush administration's failure to step in and stem the economic bleeding in my state resulting from skyrocketing electricity prices. But not only did this administration sit idly by as Enron and others conspired to wreak havoc on the economy of the West, this administration has also ignored repeated pleas to release the LIHEAP money that would aid those very citizens who have suffered the most from its inaction.

As my colleagues may recall, during the height of the western energy crisis--which we now know resulted at least in part from the manipulations of Enron and potentially other energy companies-- wholesale electricity prices spiked to as much as 1,000 percent above normal.

While prices on the wholesale markets have now stabilized, one daunting reality we face in Washington state is that, despite a series of rate increases that had reached almost 50 percent in some areas by September 2001, the worst of this crisis is not yet over. The Bonneville Power Administration, which markets about 70 percent of the power consumed in Washington, subsequently put in place a rate increase of more than 40 percent in October 2001.

My State and region continue to struggle to pay power costs incurred during the crisis, at least in part due to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's failure to act and void exorbitantly prices contracts signed with the likes of Enron. And just this week I learned that, as a result, the Northwest faces the prospect of yet another round of double-digit rate increases later this year.

Already, Washington State has suffered from the second or third highest unemployment rate in the nature for almost a year. Already, utility disconnection rates have quadrupled in some areas of my State.

Already I receive letters from constituents who have to make the choice between buying prescription drugs and paying their electricity bills. So my colleagues can imagine just what kind of threat further electricity rate increases pose to the prospect of an economic recovery.

I could recount in much more detail this administration's flagrant disregard for the statutory requirement that consumers be charged ``just and reasonable'' electricity rates. But today, I want to focus on the fact it continues to ignore the plight of citizens who have borne the brunt of the economic crisis the administration itself had a hand in creating.

During fiscal year 2002, the Bush administration had at its disposal a total of $600 million in LIHEAP contingency funds. Congress appropriated a total of $300 million of these funds as part of that year's Labor-HHS appropriations bill; the remaining funds were appropriated as part of the fiscal year 2001 Supplemental bill, which included $300 million in LIHEAP funds that remain available until expended.

Due to the dire economic circumstances in which many of my state's working families find themselves, I have repeatedly asked this administration to release a portion of those funds to Washington State.

In October 30, 2001, in testimony before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Assistant Health and Human Service Secretary Wade Horn stated that LIHEAP fulfills a ``dual responsibility to provide ongoing assistance where it is most needed and to respond to emergency situations such as extreme weather conditions, supply disruptions or price spikes.'' At the same time, he indicated that there were no plans to release emergency funds due to a drop in fuel prices as well as forecasts of a relatively mild winter.

In response, I was joined by my colleague Senator Murray as well as six other members of the Washington delegation in sending a December 10, 2001 letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, pointing out that some 73 percent of Washington's low-income households are heated by electricity--rather than natural gas or oil, as in other parts of the country--and that retail rates continued to rise rapidly. I would also point out that since 1980--when LIHEAP was first authorized--electricity prices have climbed 180 percent on a national basis, while oil, natural gas and propane prices have been relatively more stable. In light of all this, we requested an immediate release of the then-$300 million in emergency LIHEAP money. no money was released.

On March 8,, 2002, after Congress had added another $300 million to the LIHEAP contingency fund and Assistant Secretary Horn had, in his response to our first letter, suggested that should there be an emergency, the administration would release the necessary aid, I wrote again to suggest we had reached that point.

Washington State's utility shutoff moratorium was set to expire, and 5 inches of snow had just fallen in the eastern part of my State. Still no funds were released.

On April 12, 2002, I wrote yet another letter--this time to OMB Director Mitch Daniels. After a phone call, he requested more information on Washington State's particular situation. My office provided this information in an April 17, 2002 letter. Still no funds were released.

On May 28, 2002, I joined with a number of my Senate colleagues from across the country in sending a letter to President Bush, arguing that many States had already exhausted their annual LIHEAP allocation. Still no funds were released.

Finally, on August 9, the administration released $100 million of the total $300 million available in fiscal year 2002 LIHEAP contingency funds. Unfortunately, Washington State was not on the list to receive any of this additional money.

What this amendment proposes to do is take the $300 million in contingency LIHEAP funds Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2001 and distribute it to this Nation's many families in need.

I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record and article from the December 22, 2002 New York Times, entitled ``The Legacy of Power Cost Manipulation,'' which describes the situation in Snohomish County, WA.

Mr. President, in part the article says:

Here in Snohomish County, which has the highest energy

rates in the state, more than 14,000 customers have had their

electricity shut off for lack of payment this year--a 44

percent increase over 2001. They have seen electric rate

increases of 50 percent, as the Snohomish County Public

Utility District struggles to pay for long-term power

contracts it signed with companies like Enron at the height

of the price run-up . . .

``It's a pretty tough thing trying to explain to your 5-

year old kid why the lights won't come on anymore,'' said

Crystal Faye of Everett. ``I didn't pay much attention to all

that stuff about California and Enron, but it's certainly

come home to hurt us now.''

Ms. Faye and her husband, Rick, who are unemployed, have

had their power shut off twice this year.

Brianne Dorsey, a single mother, said she removed the

baseboard heater in home and has had to rely on a small wood

stove for heat, because she is $1,000 behind in paying her

electric bills . . .

Mr. President, this article details but two examples of the plight of far too many Washington state citizens--where an estimated 295,000 households were eligible for LIHEAP even before the Western energy crisis and economic downturn collided to exact such a devastating toll. In 2002, while the Bush administration sat idly by, some 80 percent of Washington State's eligible households received no LIHEAP assistance whatsoever.

Of the 20 percent that did, 74 percent had children in the home, 14 percent of these households included disabled Americans, and 10 percent included the elderly.

The amendment before us today sends a clear message: while the Bush administration has turned a blind eye to the very real economic pain being felt by our Nation's most vulnerable citizens--in my State, a pain exacerbated by a very real energy emergency with its roots in the western electricity crisis--this Congress must not turn its back. This amendment would ensure that an additional 11,000 households in Washington State, and many more through the Nation, would receive much- needed assistance in keeping the lights and the heat turned on. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden. This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the building of convicted offender records has also become more critical. The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use of the most valuable tool at their disposal.

One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual assault.

The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are being solved.

We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known felons. That is what this bill does.

In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least 12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the collection

of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their rape. When applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a national backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington State University is currently in the process of conducting a national assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this evidence analyzed now.

We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.

Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor this important legislation to address the shameful backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence in rape kits. Senator Biden, Senator Spector and I worked closely on this issue last year and this bill is an excellent compromise that combines aspects of bills introduced by myself and by Senator Biden. This bill provides critical resources to State and Federal Governments to ensure that all the DNA evidence sitting in storage rooms across the country can be tested and perpetrators found and convicted. As more and more states have moved to require DNA samples from all convicted felons, the Federal resources that this bill provides to aid in the building of convicted offender records has also become more critical. The bill unanimously passed both the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate last year. It once again has strong bipartisan support, and I anticipate that we will work quickly to pass the bill in this new Congress, so that the bill can also pass the House of Representatives and become law. This bill reauthorizes a 2000 bill and time is of the essence as those authorizations expire soon. The power of DNA to find and convict rapists in cases where there have never even been an identified suspect cannot be overstated. We must act now to help law enforcement and prosecutors across the country be able to make full use of the most valuable tool at their disposal.

One of the things that I am most pleased about is that the grant program in this bill to fund DNA testing of existing rape kits throughout the country will bear the name of Debbie Smith. In her testimony before the Crime Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee last June, she proved herself an extraordinary spokesperson on the power of DNA evidence to bring not just justice but peace to victims of sexual assault.

The heart of this bill is about getting DNA evidence from rape cases that is currently sitting in police evidence rooms tested and checked against the DNA profiles of convicted felons. We all know that DNA is a tool that works and as more states begin building their felon data bases, more and more cases of rape where police have no suspect are being solved.

We owe every woman in this country who has had the courage to come forward and undergo an invasive physical exam and evidence gathering after the trauma of a sexual assault, at a minimum, the absolute guarantee that the collected evidence is being checked against known felons. That is what this bill does.

In my state of Washington alone, in the past five years at least 12,950 women have submitted to humiliating and traumatic exams for the collection

of evidence that has not been analyzed to help solve their rape. When applied on a national scale, these findings would indicate a national backlog of 615,000 cases of untested evidence. Washington State University is currently in the process of conducting a national assessment of the backlog of rape kits and I look forward to learning those results but we simply must provide the resources to get this evidence analyzed now.

We need to pass this bill and fund this bill to help police solve more rapes and give women receive the peace of mind of knowing that everything that can be done to catch their attacker is being done.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is important that we take care of these individuals who will be left out without the amendment by Senator Clinton. The issue is, unemployment benefits not only help these individuals who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own--whether it is the Boeing Company in a downturn or other people impacted by 9/11 who have lost their jobs and need these unemployment benefits--but more importantly, unemployment benefits are also an economic stimulus. Economists have said every $1 spent on unemployment insurance generates $2.15 of economic stimulus.

I can think of no better package for us to support in a bipartisan fashion than putting more dollars into our local economies that are hurting. I know our State, with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, has an economic forecast that says the next 6 months will not get any better. So if not today, I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, when will we realize this is an economic stimulus package that we must support.

Several Senators addressed the Chair.