Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent we move to the Cantwell amendment regarding ANWR and use up that time and recognize the Senator from North Dakota when he returns.

Mr. President, I have submitted to the desk the amendment to strike the language out of the budget that would recognize revenue from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We started this discussion last night with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to talk about why America should not be focusing on drilling in a wildlife refuge, turn down the recognition of this revenue, and focus instead on an energy policy that will put America in better stead, get us off our dependency on foreign oil, reduce pollution, and focus on the technology that will truly make us energy independent.

Many have discussed or seen the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To remind my colleagues, we established this refuge because we believed in protecting the wildlife that existed there--the porcupine caribou herd, the polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, sheep, falcons, migratory birds as shown in this

picture. We wanted to fulfill our international fish and wildlife treaty obligations. Also, we wanted to provide an opportunity for continued subsistence for local residents and we wanted to ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.

These pictures from the refuge show a delicate coastline area in the northern parts of our country. The purpose of designating and protecting the wildlife refuge was because of its unique nature. One of the Episcopalian bishops from Alaska who was here yesterday spoke about the refuge as actual sacred ground and the fact that the preservation of it means so much to many Alaskans as it does to many people throughout America.

But we are here today on what I call a budget end run to recognize revenue in the budget as a way to try and open drilling in ANWR, to open drilling in this pristine wildlife area.

Now, why, if you want to support drilling in Alaska in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, do you want to try to do it on the budget? My point is, it starts a precedent for opening other areas by simply putting money in the budget. Why not expedite timber sales by simply recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling on the coastal regions of the country by recognizing revenues in the budget? Why not open drilling in Yellowstone National Park by recognizing revenues in the budget? It is a bad precedent.

It is a bad precedent for America because if you look at the President's potential U.S. oil and gas plan for America, you can see that the administration has oil plans for all over the country: up in the Northwest in the State of Washington, which I represent; and neighboring States, Oregon and California; along the eastern seaboard; in Florida, significant areas; up in the Great Lakes region. These are all the potential areas that the administration has designated as opportunities for oil drilling.

Do we want to stick in the budget revenue recognizing oil production in these areas and simply subvert the normal process that would allow us to debate and consider whether we should have these oil sources recognized?

This particular Senator agrees with some of the editorials around the country when it says this sets a bad precedent. In fact, there are many newspapers, particularly from coastal regions such as mine that are concerned. Let's go to the St. Petersburg newspaper. It said: So why should Floridians be concerned about the caribou? Obviously, there are no caribou in Florida. But the caribou being driven out of their icy habitat by oil rigs, because of this, for Florida, ``means there, by the grace of Congress, go we.''

That is what the St. Petersburg newspaper is trying to say. If you decide to drill in Alaska and recognize in the budget this revenue, what will stop them from doing this in other parts of the country?

Another Florida newspaper said:

The costs and risks of drilling in the Alaskan refuge

outweigh the benefits. [And] opposition to the drilling off

Florida's coast would be compromised.

So this is not only this Senator saying this, these are people from across the country who are concerned about this process of sticking money in the budget as a way to achieve the goals of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Well, I can tell you, I think opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the wrong direction for America. It is the wrong direction for America for many reasons. As I said, we have a pristine wildlife area we want to protect. If someone thinks it can coexist, if somehow drilling for oil in this region and the wildlife refuge can coexist, I would like them to think about this.

In the Prudhoe Bay area, we have averaged 500 oil spills a year. From 1972 to 1986, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation reported 23,000 spills of oil and hazardous materials on the Northern Slope. Annual emissions from air pollutants on the Northern Slope include at least 4,000 tons of hydrocarbons, more than 6,000 tons of methane gas, 6,000 to 27,000 tons of nitrogen oxide.

If that is not enough, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife studies have reported that the snowfields around Prudhoe Bay have high concentrations of heavy metals such as zinc, lead, and copper. For some of those chemicals, the nitrogen oxide level is as much as in Washington, DC. And we are talking about just an area in Alaska.

If you think drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge can coexist with the refuge, I would also like to suggest we take a look at the even newer Alaskan oilfields which have significant problems with environmental management.

In February 2000, one oil company was sentenced to pay $15.5 million in criminal fines and to implement new environmental management programs, and to serve 5 years probation for failure to report illegal dumping of hazardous materials in certain oil wells. They also paid an additional $6.5 million in civil penalties, while its contractor pled guilty to 15 counts of violating the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and paid a $3 million fine.

A 2003 study of by National Academy of Sciences, which studied the cumulative effects of current drilling on the Northern Slope of Alaska, documented significant environmental and cultural effects that have accumulated after three decades of oil development on Alaska's Northern Slope.

So I think it is very foolish to say oil development and a wildlife refuge can coexist, not when we are talking about clean water, not when we are talking about preserving a wildlife habitat, not when we are talking about continuing to preserve what has been called a very unique area of our country.

But there is something I think the Senate needs to understand as we take this vote. This is a good proposal for Alaska, and I don't fault my colleagues for trying to propose this particular proposal. I would much rather, as I said last night, work with my colleagues on a natural gas proposal and provide the resources necessary to build a pipeline and access a significant source of natural gas supply that would help us in America getting off our dependence of oil in general and develop a much cleaner supply for Americans. But there is nothing in this language that guarantees the oil produced in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge would even stay in the United States. The oil companies are free to export that oil. So for those who say somehow this is going to affect gas prices--and, believe me, we will not see this oil for 10 years, and it is only a 6-month supply, and it will have a minimal impact on markets--it certainly has no guarantee to have an impact on price or supply in the rest of the U.S. market because the oil drilled in the refuge can be exported.

I also question whether the estimates of money in the budget resolution are even valid, whether the numbers are even correct. That is because current law requires that there be a 90-10 split between revenues that go to Alaska and the Federal Government. This budget resolution supposedly recognizes a 50-50 split, which I do not understand how one gets to that conclusion, because it is not current law. In any case, that split means Alaska residents would get $717 per person per year. So I get why it is a great deal for Alaskans. But it is not a great deal for Americans.

Americans need to move ahead and produce a variety of sources of energy supply. I am going to talk about that in a few minutes, but I want to recognize some of my colleagues who also want to speak.

What we need to recognize is that drilling in the refuge only increases America's reliance on fossil fuel, and that, according to another newspaper editorial in our country, is being recognized by Americans all over. They know that would increase America's reliance on fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on imported oil.

That is what the other side would like to say the debate is about, improving our independence. What we should do instead is invest in new technologies and change our strategy. We do not need to open a wildlife refuge and continue to depend on something that we know has a very high chance of polluting the environment and harming the wildlife, but get on to investing in the technology that will diversify our energy supply and give us a secure future.

Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. President, I would like to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts for 10 minutes.

I yield the Senator an additional 1 minute.

Mr. President, I would like to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. President, then how much time remains on the ANWR debate for both sides?

Thank you.

Mr. President, if I could take a few moments to point out that this Senator certainly wants America to move forward with the development of new energy supply. In fact, I am saying the whole debate should be about supply and not recognizing revenue in the budget for an ill-conceived project in a wildlife refuge.

We can get as much supply or more by doing the Alaska natural gas pipeline. That natural gas supply would save 6 billion barrels over 10 years; use of off-the-shelf renewables and energy efficiency technologies, 4.9 billion barrels in the next 10 years; increasing use of ethanol in our gasoline, 5.1 billion barrels over 10 years; improving tire inflation and automobile maintenance--you don't have to come up with a new place to drill--5.4 billion barrels; increasing automobile fuel efficiency standards, 10 billion barrels. So we certainly are about supply; we are just for a cleaner supply.

Why are we for a cleaner supply? Because if you look at it, and you compare the various proposals I have outlined with drilling in the Arctic Refuge, you get increased pollution from refuge drilling, increased CO2 levels, you impact Federal lands, and I don't believe you are going to have any immediate impact on our country's energy resources. These other actions I have outlined actually decrease pollution levels. Those are the actions we should be taking, not refuge drilling.

Now, a lot has been said about gasoline and gasoline prices. We ought to be investigating why gasoline prices are so high, not accepting that we are going to have to be more dependent on foreign oil. In fact, a recent attorneys general office statement stated that gasoline producers marked up prices 152 percent between January and March of 2003. In the first 3 months of 2003, average gasoline prices increased 57 cents in California alone.

A trade industry magazine talked about the peculiar incidence of exporting distillate. That is taking our supply and exporting it. What does that do? It decreases the supply in the United States, and it increases the spot market prices at refineries. There is nothing in the budget resolution that guarantees we are going to lower gasoline prices. And there is nothing in the language of the budget resolution that guarantees any supply recovered from the Arctic Refuge will even stay in the United States.

I wish my colleagues would embrace these facts and guarantee that if we are doing to go into a wildlife refuge and drill for oil, at least we should require that we keep whatever oil we produce in the United States for our domestic use. But I doubt they will guarantee that. So now we are talking about drilling in a wildlife area. In doing so, we will increase pollution and not get our country off our foreign oil dependence and certainly not lower gasoline prices any time in the near term.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. President, information was provided by the President's own economist and energy supply analysts who were asked recently about whether refuge drilling was going to have any impact on oil prices. Even the President's own economist at the Energy Information Administration found that opening ANWR will have negligible impact on prices.

I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the resolution by the National Congress of American Indians be printed in the Record.

We have heard a lot about tribes in Alaska. I want to point out to my colleagues that the National Congress of American Indians, an organization representing more than 500 tribes across the country, have previously opposed drilling in the wildlife refuge, and that certainly is what we are talking about--a debate of national significance.

I point out that many people in Puget Sound and across the country do believe this isn't going to do anything to meet our country's energy needs. This newspaper article says:

Drilling in the refuge would increase America's reliance on

fossil fuels and do little to limit our dependence on

imported oil.

Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, who has been so outspoken and important to this debate. I thank him for his leadership on this issue.

How much time remains?

As we close debate on the Cantwell amendment, which I hope my colleagues will support, I feel we have had a hearty discussion this morning about what America should do as it relates to the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but, more importantly, what we should also do about planning for America's future.

I point out that today a Gallup poll was released that shows where the American people are. We may be very divided in the Senate, but the American public is consistent in its concern about and interest in conservation. In fact, Americans by a 2-to-1 margin say the United States should emphasize greater consumer conservation over existing energy supplies, rather than production of oil, gas, coal, or other supplies.

Now, that is what the American public wants. That is certainly what people in the State of Washington want. That is certainly what the people in Puget Sound want. I say that because I think they are like many Americans in that they want to reduce CO2 emissions. They want to do something about global warming. They want to do something about diversifying our nation's energy supply. We have great companies in my state that are adding to the Washington economy, and they want to diversify into various energy technologies that will help us in the future.

So, no, the majority of Washingtonians do not want to see drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They want to see it protected. In fact, it is the one thing I think they feel most strongly about; that is, they want to lead the way on a new energy economy and show that we can have higher CAFE standards, produce alternative fuels, make a dent in our gasoline use by blending it with ethanol, and get energy conservation plans moving.

But when it comes to gasoline prices, I think they are like every other American, they are darn concerned about the high gasoline prices in America and wonder why they are so high when four refineries are located in the State of Washington. And for a market that was manipulated on electricity prices, and with very little help from the other side of the aisle in getting those market manipulation contracts voided, the Puget Sound economy remains concerned about why the price of gasoline, which is a commodity that is refined so close to home, is the highest price in the country.

Now, there is nothing in the budget resolution language that says that oil produced in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will stay in the United States. That is right, no guarantee at all. The oil will be exported to other countries. So as the President's economist has said, it will have negligible impact on the price of gasoline. To open up a wildlife refuge for a minimal amount of oil, that even the President's economist says will have a negligible effect on price and supply, is an ill-advised plan.

My colleagues have already talked about the pollution and the environmental problems caused by drilling. But I want to point out, America does have a different future. I will work with my colleagues from Alaska on a proposal that is three times the job creation for us and for Alaska--the Alaska natural gas pipeline.

America was smart enough, in the 1970s, to get off our dependence on home heating oil because we decided as a country we could not continue to be held hostage by Middle East oil policy. We had a 35-percent reduction in home heating oil use. It is time to do the same with gasoline, but not by producing more oil, but by changing and focusing on developing alternatives.

We can focus on building a pipeline to capture Alaska's natural gas; it is the equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil. We can focus on efficiency and renewables. We can focus on ethanol. We can focus on improvements in efficiency of transportation, of tires, and increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, which some of the speakers on the other side, I should note, do not support a higher automobile fuel efficiency standard. That would be a great way, by reducing the need for 10 billion barrels of oil over the next 10 years, of saving and getting us off of our overdependence.

A young woman who came in to see us yesterday presented us with a tire gauge, and she showed us that if Americans had the right level of inflation in their car's tires it could save over 200,000 barrels of oil a day.

So we have a choice. We have a choice about whether we are going to continue down this road of a fossil-fuel economy to the degree that we are going to say it is even worth it, it is even worth it to go into a wildlife refuge to find oil, or we are going to move our country forward on a new energy plan.

I encourage my colleagues to support the Cantwell amendment and strike this language from the budget resolution.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Snowe be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I urge Members to support the Cantwell amendment. It is clear what our options are today. We can continue this proposal to try to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, even though Congress previously has said let's not do that and let's preserve the wildlife. We know that the amount of oil generated, according to the President's own economic advisers, will have a negligible impact on oil prices. Maybe that is because there is no guarantee that the revenue collected from this or the oil from the Arctic Wildlife Refuge will be kept in America. This oil will be exported, part of international markets, and do nothing to help us get our overdependence on oil off this track and on to the right track.

I urge my colleagues to turn this argument down and to start on an energy future that is about renewables, about conservation, about new energy technologies.

Our legacy on this floor is not going to be a pipeline in Alaska but preserving a wildlife area and getting on with an energy future that America wants and needs.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. I have sent an amendment to the desk that I am offering to strike the language from the budget resolution the reconciliation instructions to the Energy Committee that assume Arctic drilling. Specifically, under the instructions, the Energy Committee must report legislation by June 6 at the latest that produces $2.7 billion in revenue from 2006 until 2007.

We had a unanimous consent order earlier to agree to debate the amendment, and I thought it would be wise to put the amendment on the desk.

I hope you have no objection, but tomorrow at 1 o'clock you might object to the amendment, but thank you for allowing us to lay it down.

Mr. President, I thought for the benefit of my colleagues we would lay that down tonight so people could understand the amendment and we could continue debating it in our time this evening and continue debating it tomorrow. I hope that clarifies issues for my colleagues.

I start by saying a word to the Senators from Alaska because I think both Senators from Alaska have been diligent in their concerns for this issue, in their advocacy for making sure the issues they would like to represent are heard in this debate, and that the accuracy of information provided is correct. I certainly applaud them for that. But, I certainly don't diminish the difference of opinion we might express tonight as it relates to where this country should go on an energy policy.

I believe our energy policy must be very aggressive in creating a future for new energy technology and renewables, in making a downpayment on getting off of our overdependence on foreign oil, and, specifically in continuing to diversify off of our country's dependence on oil in general.

I may have a different opinion about what I think our energy strategy should be. If the last generation of Americans were smart enough to put a man on the Moon, this generation of Americans ought to be smart enough to get off our overdependence on foreign oil. But that assumes we would pass an energy bill that would outline these policies and that we would have a debate about them. We have been trying to have this debate, and we certainly have had disagreements about what the policy should be.

For the last couple of years, I have expressed concern over our country's overfocus on fossil fuels, the fact that 60 percent of the incentives in the Energy bill have focused on fossil fuels. And I think we should start incentivizing other types of energy supply and move ahead.

That is why I find this particular process to be an end run on energy policy and energy discussions. In fact, I think it is somewhat absurd that we can simply mandate the opening of ANWR by putting language in the budget, by simply saying: Let's put the revenue in the budget, and by doing that, we will then start the process for legislating that ANWR could be opened.

The reason why that is so bothersome to this particular Senator-- think, for example, if in the next budget we put revenue in there expediting timber sales in our National Forests or basically expediting the leasing off the coast of Florida for oil production. Or, God forbid, why don't we put revenue in the resolution recognizing oil leasing in Yellowstone National Park, even though it is a National Park? Why don't we do this process by continuing to put revenues in the budget resolution?

Well, I think the energy debate deserves far more attention than simply sticking language in the budget resolution demanding the Energy Committee report a bill capture this revenue. I think that is what other people have started to see about this proposal. In fact, the New York Times recently ran a story about this, the refuge drilling, and basically pointed out:

Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said

including the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open

the door for more geological promising prospects off the

coasts of California and Florida.

So my first question is, If we don't stop this now, where does this stop in the future? I ask my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, if today you are going to allow the opening of ANWR by simply putting language in the budget requiring that we produce revenue, where will you go next? And clearly, I do not think the discussion of opening up leasing off the coast of Florida or the coast of California or even in ANWR belongs in the budget resolution. I do not think we should legislate in the budget resolution. To me, the process of having this debate now is very bothersome. But I understand there are some who will continue to push this until they find a way to make this proposal a reality.

I do not think anybody can say our side of the aisle cannot be concerned about this type of tactic. I simply say, we should vote for my amendment tomorrow and turn this proposal down and start a real discussion on the energy bill.

The senior Senator from Alaska, I know, is very concerned that this not be referred to as a wilderness area. He is right. It is a wildlife refuge. He is right. It is a wildlife refuge. It is not a wilderness area. One of my colleagues would like to make it a wilderness area, the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and he has proposed legislation to do that. We have had that debate, too. We have had that debate about as long as we have had this debate about whether we should open up ANWR to oil drilling.

The fact of the matter is, in 1980, section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act specifically prohibited oil and gas development in the entire refuge or the leasing or development leading to the production of oil and gas from the range unless authorized by Congress. So that is what we are here debating: unless authorized by Congress.

I have given you my reasons why I do not think we should authorize on the

budget resolution this significant of an action without discussing energy policy and the impacts of opening up ANWR on the refuge.

I personally think there are many things we should be doing to attain our energy future. I think there are many policies that would be far more interesting to us as a country because a lot of people are trying to argue that we should do this now because it is an energy supply and it is national security.

Well, I can tell you, this Senator, along with my fellow west coast Senators, is outraged over the price of gasoline in America. We are from a State such as Washington, where we have four refineries, we are the closest to the supply that you could get, and yet we have some of the highest gasoline prices in America.

So what this Senator would like to see--just as I have forced and pushed, and will continue to speak out on market manipulation of electricity prices--I believe we should do our homework and make sure we are holding those responsible accountable as to: Why do we have this diversity of gasoline prices when there is so much available supply right in our backyard?

I know the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, has asked for investigations into these high gasoline prices, and threatened to hold up various nominations over the issue. I have certainly put questions to various members of the Department of Energy, the Department of Justice, and to our own State's Governor, and will continue to do so, because I think the price of gasoline is outrageous.

This particular Senator is not a supporter for opening up the SPRO. I agree, we should have energy for energy security, an energy supply. I think people have made that point and made it well. But I want to see us continue to diversify into other areas. So this Senator will join the Alaska Senators any day of the week to talk about the development, the delivery, the execution, and expedited access to Alaska natural gas. We need to have natural gas. If there is any proposal that deserves an expedited review by this body, it would be to get that production to the United States at a faster rate.

Let me remind my colleagues, when security was a national debate in the 1970s, when we were all at the gasoline line filling up our cars, waiting, with the most absurd price for gasoline, America took notice. America took notice of those gas prices and said: What are we going to do about it? And we had an aggressive plan to get off of our dependence on home heating oil. We realized the price of oil was so expensive that it was not smart for America to continue a policy of investing in that as a delivery source of energy. Now, decades later, we have reduced our dependence on home heating oil 35 percent. We got the natural gas. We got the necessary supply. We got it to where people needed it. And we made a major shift in America. We took the prices that were facing us and we acted with the certainty about the future we wanted to see in America, with a cleaner source of energy supply.

So first on my list would be making sure we have the North Slope natural gas pipeline project moving. We certainly heard today from a variety of people about renewable fuels.

I should say, by the way, people talk about the drilling in the Arctic, and we don't know for sure, but economically recoverable oil might be somewhere between 3.2 and 5 billion barrels. That is generally what people think. Well, there is at least 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas available. So that is the energy equivalent of 6 billion barrels of oil.

We could continue to look at renewable or nonpetroleum fuel, such as ethanol made from crops, something the other side of the aisle has also supported, and look at requirements for renewable content of gasoline. That would be about 5.1 billion barrels by 2013--again, a source of cleaner energy that would be important for us in an energy plan.

We can invest in new technology to convert agriculture waste to oil, something some States are doing on a much smaller scale. But we could produce as much as 4 billion barrels of a cleaner product on an annual basis.

I certainly am a fan of making sure that CAFE standards are passed by Congress. If you think about the CAFE standards and fuel efficiency, that would help us. We could save 60 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years.

Why are we not focusing on that in our proposal for an energy plan? Just making sure the tires of our transportation system are properly inflated and educating America on the oil savings of that simple action could save 200,000 barrels of oil per day. Yet we are out here discussing a proposal that has been discussed for years, with much controversy and much concern because of what it focuses on--first, a refuge wildlife area that was set aside and preserved, and a focus on oil that some of us, including myself, are saying we need to diversify off of.

I could go through other examples of renewable technologies, of energy efficiency technology that could continue to save the equivalent of another 4.9 billion barrels of oil--something that I know would make great progress with the building and development sectors of our country as they add efficiency improvement, and install renewable technologies and distributed generation. But that is the kind of leadership I think we should be talking about. We should not be talking about whether we want to go and open up this wildlife refuge.

If I may, I know my colleagues have put up a few pictures. I would like to put up a few pictures of the area as well because I think when the area was first established as a wildlife refuge, people recognized the uniqueness of the coastal region. The government looked at it as an area to support wildlife and sustain their migration patterns. We have heard a lot about that for the last several years, the caribou and their migration habits. I never thought the Senate would become such experts on the migration habits of the caribou, but I think both sides of the aisle have expressed quite a bit of knowledge. I am simply offering a few pictures of the wildlife that resides on the coastal plain of the refuge. The reason I am showing these photographs is to remind my colleagues and individuals that we have choices, and we have options like this refuge drilling proposal that we have debated before, and it is fine to debate them. What I object to is the process of trying to essentially stick authorizing language on a budget bill. That is a bad precedent and it is trying to limit discussion on an issue that was never intended to be considered in this way without the Energy Committee and the Energy Committee debate.

Now, I know some people have talked about the supply of oil we might get from the refuge. I think that New York Times article was very interesting in the sense that it said:

Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil

from the refuge would only meet a tiny fraction of America's

needs.

I ask unanimous consent for 30 more seconds so I may finish up.

Mr. President, I ask my colleagues as we continue this debate to think about this proposal and the fact that we ought to be taking ourselves in a different direction, and this proposal will not provide us the leadership for an energy future that we need.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues on the Senate Judiciary Committee and others who have worked together for many years, despite considerable differences in the area of bankruptcy reform, to produce a bill that has passed the Senate a number of times. All that said, the bill is far from perfect, and the Senate should take full advantage of this opportunity to take a number of steps to amend this bill and improve it. I have supported amendments that improve the bill in areas where it affects particularly vulnerable consumers and retirees, and I believe we should also address incidents of corporate abuse. There are also ways to bring the bill up to date with modern technology and crime.

For example, I proudly join my colleague from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in recommending to all my colleagues the pending Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe privacy amendment, Amendment No. 26. This amendment is an appropriate response to the recent erosion of informational privacy in our society, demonstrated by the ChoicePoint and Bank of America personal informational security breaches, where the personal information of thousands of people was misappropriated by identity thieves.

Consumers should not have to surrender their privacy rights, just to gain access to our Nation's bankruptcy system. There are a number of reasons why it is simply sound practice for bankruptcy courts to join other Federal courts that already have a viable

mechanism to file personal information of debtors and others under seal. Identity theft is a predictable outcome when criminals have virtually unfettered access to an obvious public database of people who are already vulnerable in public bankruptcy court files. In some instances, a debtor might be a battered woman, a victim of a stalker or another victim of domestic violence, and the disclosure of that person's private information may subject her to further abuse. Congress has recognized the need to render private such personal information in court filings in much of the Federal court system, and this body should now add the bankruptcy courts to the list of properly protected public entities. Although I recognize that bankruptcy courts have some discretion to protect ``scandalous or defamatory matter,'' the point or preserving privacy of this information should also be to protect information that could be used to injure the consumer, either financially or even physically. It is also clear that such courts do not have the same ability to do protect information for cause as do other Federal courts. It is time to fix this unjustifiable distinction between the privacy rights of litigants in one kind of Federal court and another. I ask my colleagues to support Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe, because people's economic and even their physical security may be in jeopardy otherwise. Let's not wait for the inevitable abuse of this loophole, which could lead to stolen identities, or physical harm, before we act.

I urge my colleagues to vote for the Leahy-Cantwell-Snowe amendment.

Mr. President, I am voting in favor of S.J. Res. 4, which invokes the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's minimal risk rule. I wanted to explain to my colleagues and my constituents my reason for doing so.

I understand that the use of the Congressional Review Act is rare. Congress has successfully used it only once in 2001, and its use should not be undertaken lightly. The Congressional Review Act permitting these rule disapproval resolutions became law in 1996. Although I understand from floor debate today the President intends to veto this resolution if it reaches his desk, if the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Conrad, were successful, the result of his actions would be to overturn the minimal risk rule and prohibit USDA from issuing another similar rule unless Congress authorizes the agency to act.

I believe adopting this rule at this time is not the right action for our Nation's consumers and our country's beef industry. As Secretary Johanns stated during his confirmation hearing, reestablishing trade to Japan and other countries is our No. 1 priority. This goal will only be achieved when we prove that we have implemented and enforced dependable BSE firewalls.

Though Canada may have taken action to eliminate some loopholes in its feed ban, and is considering additional rules to ban specialized risk materials or SRMs from animal feed, we should not open our borders until these additional firewalls are in place. And we should be doing more to ensure that our feed is not contaminated by similar loopholes in the United States.

Existing loopholes in the 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban continue to

pose a risk that ruminant materials may find their way into cattle feed.

Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration promised to close these loopholes and stated that it had reached a preliminary conclusion last July to remove SRM from all animal feed, the agency has failed to act.

Therefore, to address this issue, I have introduced legislation entitled the Animal Feed Protection Act of 2005, S.73, which would ban SRMs from being used in any animal feed. This would eliminate the possibility that ruminant materials are knowingly or accidentally fed to cattle.

Banning SRMs from all animal feed is an important step we can take to fully ensure the safety of ruminant feed, and I hope that the Senate's vote today will encourage our Government and the Canadian Government to act more swiftly on this issue.

Some will argue that I should be convinced by the report APHIS released at the end of February stating that Canada's feed ban compliance is good. I am not convinced.

On January 24, 2005, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS, sent a team of technical experts to Canada to assess Canada's current feed ban and feed inspection program. The APHIS investigation was initiated in response to Canada's latest case of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, BSE, which came just days after the USDA published its ``Minimal Risk Rule'' in the Federal Register on January 4, 2005.

The purpose of this investigation was to determine whether the control measures put in place by the Canadian Government are achieving compliance with regard to these regulations. This was a serious investigation. Canada's latest BSE case, reported on January 11, 2005, was particularly alarming because it was discovered in a cow under 7 years of age and was thus born after implementation of the 1997 ruminant-to-ruminant feed ban.

On January 12, 2005, I sent a letter to Secretary Veneman and then- Governor Johanns, requesting that the audit being conducted by APHIS inspectors be given time for a full and fair analysis. The final APHIS report of last week largely repeats information USDA released as part of its risk assessment supporting the minimal risk rule in January. This Senator asked for a full look, if 2 weeks of Canadian inspections yielded compelling evidence that the Canadian feed ban was being fully enforced, this report misses the mark.

I strongly believe that all consumers deserve reassurance that Canadian rendering facilities, feed mills, and ranchers are in compliance with Canada's feed regulations. As you know, the ruminant feed ban has been determined to be arguably the most important BSE risk mitigation measure to protect animal health.

The APHIS report states that ``Canada has a robust inspection program, that overall compliance with the feed ban is good and that the feed ban is reducing the risk of transmission of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in the Canadian cattle population.''

It is not clear what ``good'' compliance means. We must provide our trading partners, such as Japan and South Korea, stronger assurances than those provided in this APHIS report.

We must provide them proof that we have done everything possible to control and eradicate this deadly disease as we work to reestablish the trust of their consumers and access to their markets.

It is very important that USDA systematically evaluate all possible risks before reopening the border to Canadian cattle. I do not believe that USDA has completed this level of evaluation.

Therefore, I will be asking the National Academy of Sciences to review the APHIS findings. They should assess whether every aspect critical to evaluating feed regulations and compliance has been addressed in this report or if additional analyses and inspections are needed.

The American public must be assured that Canadian cattle will not increase the risk of BSE in the U.S. Until the American public has been assured, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the Canadians are in full compliance with feed regulations it is prudent that we delay moving forward on reopening the border until this assurance has been made.

The question of what will be best for the U.S. beef industry with respect to reopening the border to Canada is complex. And deciding how best to proceed is not an easy decision to make or an easy step to take.

Segments of the U.S. beef industry are clearly divided on this issue and not in agreement regarding what is best for the future of the U.S. beef industry. This is due in most part because this rule has affected industry segments in vastly different ways.

Although some regions of the U.S. have been hit harder than others, I know we all agree that as a nation, reestablishing the export markets and international market share that the U.S. beef industry once held, is our No. 1 priority. With that common goal in mind, we must use basic common sense and delay going forward with the implementation of this rule at this time.

Therefore, in the interest of reestablishing the trust of our trading partners and preserving the confidence of the American people, I will be voting in favor of this resolution and would urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a tax injustice affecting my home State of Washington, and all States that do not have a State income tax. My bill, the Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act, would prohibit States from imposing income taxes on individuals that are not residents of that State. I hear about this issue in the areas of my State that border Oregon and Idaho, both States that have income taxes. In fact, wherever I go in Vancouver and throughout Clark County, I hear time and again from constituents about the unfairness of living in Washington State--a State that does not have an income tax--and working in Oregon--a State that does have an income tax and being taxed on their income earned in Oregon.

According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 2002, there were 51,991 Clark County residents working in Oregon. Taxed on their income, these nearly 52,000 individuals remitted $104 million to Oregon that year.

Representing all of Washington State in Congress, it is not lost on me that an additional 30,181 Washington State residents outside of Clark County were also employed in Oregon in 2002, and these 30,000 paid the State of Oregon $49.8 million.

Furthermore, there are Washington State residents working in Idaho. In 2002, 19,467 of them owed the State of Idaho $18.9 million in income taxes.

While I would like to hope that most Washingtonians could find employment in Washington State, and I am grateful for the job opportunities presented to Washingtonians in Oregon, I find it antithetical to notions of lifting up the economy of Washington State to have the incomes of Washington State residents taxed in Oregon.

We have historical roots in this country related to the notion of no taxation without representation. Washington residents being taxed in Oregon is contrary to this whole premise--a premise upon which American independence rested over 200 years ago.

Good tax policy rests on the notion that individual's contribution to the

government through taxes brings benefits to those individuals--good schools, navigable roads, safe communities, clean water, and other services.

With incomes taxed in Oregon, Washington residents receive very little benefit for the contributions made to the State of Oregon. Granted, Oregon maintains the infrastructure used by Washingtonians to get to work; but there are a number of benefits that Washington residents never realize from the taxes they pay. For example, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive in-State tuition rates for college.

In addition, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive the benefit of paying less for fishing licenses. Examples of what this can mean: for 2005, an angling license for Oregonians is $24.75 for the year; for a Washingtonian who pays income taxes in Oregon, his/her angling license is $61.50--a 248- percent increase. The discrepancy in Idaho is even greater. For 2005, a combined hunting/fishing license for an Idaho resident is $30.50 and for a Washingtonian who is paying Idaho income taxes would be charged $181.50 for the same license--a 595-percent increase.

And first and foremost, Washington residents employed in Oregon and paying income taxes are not afforded voting rights in Oregon, thereby being taxed without representation.

The power for Congress to enact legislation to prohibit one State from assessing taxes on nonresidents working within that State exists in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Congress has exercised this authority in the past.

The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 prohibits States from taxing the compensation of nonresident military personnel who are stationed in that State.

In July of 1977, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, legislation prohibiting the States of Virginia and Maryland, or the District of Columbia, from imposing an income tax against Members of Congress who maintain homes in those jurisdictions.

Additionally, with the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1990, Congress granted tax immunity to employees of interstate railway, aviation, and motor carriers from paying State income taxes to any State other than an employee's State of residence.

It is time for Congress, once again, to utilize its authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the imposition of income taxes by States on nonresidents. It is my view that interstate trade in labor is important commerce that deserves to be treated fairly.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct a tax injustice affecting my home State of Washington, and all States that do not have a State income tax. My bill, the Nonresident Income Tax Freedom Act, would prohibit States from imposing income taxes on individuals that are not residents of that State. I hear about this issue in the areas of my State that border Oregon and Idaho, both States that have income taxes. In fact, wherever I go in Vancouver and throughout Clark County, I hear time and again from constituents about the unfairness of living in Washington State--a State that does not have an income tax--and working in Oregon--a State that does have an income tax and being taxed on their income earned in Oregon.

According to the Oregon Department of Revenue, in 2002, there were 51,991 Clark County residents working in Oregon. Taxed on their income, these nearly 52,000 individuals remitted $104 million to Oregon that year.

Representing all of Washington State in Congress, it is not lost on me that an additional 30,181 Washington State residents outside of Clark County were also employed in Oregon in 2002, and these 30,000 paid the State of Oregon $49.8 million.

Furthermore, there are Washington State residents working in Idaho. In 2002, 19,467 of them owed the State of Idaho $18.9 million in income taxes.

While I would like to hope that most Washingtonians could find employment in Washington State, and I am grateful for the job opportunities presented to Washingtonians in Oregon, I find it antithetical to notions of lifting up the economy of Washington State to have the incomes of Washington State residents taxed in Oregon.

We have historical roots in this country related to the notion of no taxation without representation. Washington residents being taxed in Oregon is contrary to this whole premise--a premise upon which American independence rested over 200 years ago.

Good tax policy rests on the notion that individual's contribution to the

government through taxes brings benefits to those individuals--good schools, navigable roads, safe communities, clean water, and other services.

With incomes taxed in Oregon, Washington residents receive very little benefit for the contributions made to the State of Oregon. Granted, Oregon maintains the infrastructure used by Washingtonians to get to work; but there are a number of benefits that Washington residents never realize from the taxes they pay. For example, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive in-State tuition rates for college.

In addition, Washington State residents employed in Oregon and paying Oregon income taxes do not receive the benefit of paying less for fishing licenses. Examples of what this can mean: for 2005, an angling license for Oregonians is $24.75 for the year; for a Washingtonian who pays income taxes in Oregon, his/her angling license is $61.50--a 248- percent increase. The discrepancy in Idaho is even greater. For 2005, a combined hunting/fishing license for an Idaho resident is $30.50 and for a Washingtonian who is paying Idaho income taxes would be charged $181.50 for the same license--a 595-percent increase.

And first and foremost, Washington residents employed in Oregon and paying income taxes are not afforded voting rights in Oregon, thereby being taxed without representation.

The power for Congress to enact legislation to prohibit one State from assessing taxes on nonresidents working within that State exists in the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3. And Congress has exercised this authority in the past.

The Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 prohibits States from taxing the compensation of nonresident military personnel who are stationed in that State.

In July of 1977, Congress passed, and President Carter signed, legislation prohibiting the States of Virginia and Maryland, or the District of Columbia, from imposing an income tax against Members of Congress who maintain homes in those jurisdictions.

Additionally, with the Amtrak Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 1990, Congress granted tax immunity to employees of interstate railway, aviation, and motor carriers from paying State income taxes to any State other than an employee's State of residence.

It is time for Congress, once again, to utilize its authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit the imposition of income taxes by States on nonresidents. It is my view that interstate trade in labor is important commerce that deserves to be treated fairly.

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

Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.

The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible.

Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association, AHA, reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, 10 percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding 2-year period.

In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008.

According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, shows a 3-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list.

While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent.

The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy.

Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions.

Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately 9 million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week.

Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older.

Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects.

One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a 9-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a 6-month interval in the absence of further treatment.

The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry with have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the Nation's health care system in this decade and beyond.

The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel.

Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to

carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program.

I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages.

There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to:

Washington State Hospital Association

Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA)

American Association for Respiratory Care

American Association of Community Colleges

American Clinical Laboratory Association

American Dental Hygienists' Association

American Dietetic Association

American Health Information Management Association

American Hospital Association

American Physical Therapy Association

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

American Society for Clinical Pathology

American Society of Radiologic Technologists

Association of Academic Health Centers

College of Health Deans

Midwest Regional Deans Group

Myositis Association

National Association of EMS Educators

National Cancer Registrars Association

National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year

Colleges

Northeast Regional Deans Group

In addition to these organizations, I would also like to express my appreciation to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, for its support of the legislation as well as its ongoing efforts to address the need for allied health professionals and allied health faculty.

ASAHP, founded in 1967, has a membership that includes 108 institutions of higher learning throughout the United States, as well as several hundred individual members. ASAHP publishes a quarterly journal and also conducts an annual survey of member institutions. This annual survey, called the ``Institutional Profile Survey,'' is used for, among other purposes, collecting student application and enrollment data. These data substantiate that there is a pressing need to address existing allied health workforce shortages, which have been further exacerbated by declines in enrollment that have occurred for 4 straight years.

In the survey conducted during the period September-November 2004 for the 2004-2005 class starting in fall 2004, the results from 90 academic institutions indicate that in 16 of the 20 professions studied, available classroom seats were not filled. For example, only 33 percent of enrollment capacity was reached for health information management programs in these schools. Given the emphasis on increasing the use of information technology in health care such as conversion to electronic patient records, that figure is disturbingly low.

Similarly, the survey shows that enrollment levels were low in the following professions: rehabilitation counseling, 44 percent, emergency medical sciences, 66 percent, cytotechnology, 69 percent, and medical technology, 77 percent. Severe workforce shortages already exist in the two laboratory professions and emergency medical personnel will play a key role as first responders in dealing with any bioterrorism incident that might occur.

Using data from the Institutional Profile Survey, as well as the General Accounting Office, U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources, ASAHP has compiled what I believe to be a compelling rationale in its support for the Allied Health Reinvestment Act that Senators Bingaman, Lieberman, and I introduce today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Rationale for an Allied Health Reinvestment Act from the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, the well-being of the U.S. population depends to a considerable extent on having access to high quality health care which, in turn, requires the presence of an adequate supply of health care professionals. The Congress and the President recognized this need when we passed, and President Bush signed, the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress. Just as with nurses, we must also insure an adequate supply of well-prepared allied health professionals. That is why, today, I am introducing the Allied Health Reinvestment Act with my good colleagues, Senator Bingaman of New Mexico and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut.

The allied health professions are many. Those recognized in the act include professionals in the areas of: dental hygiene, dietetics/ nutrition, emergency medical services, health information management, clinical laboratory sciences/medical technology, cytotechnology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, radiologic technology, nuclear medical technology, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and speech-language pathology/audiology. This is not an exhaustive list, as the act will leave to the discretion of the Secretary of HHS additional professions deemed eligible.

Today, many allied health professions are characterized by existing workforce shortages, declining enrollments in academic institutions, or a combination of both factors. The American Hospital Association, AHA, reports vacancy rates of 18 percent among radiology technicians, 10 percent among laboratory technologists, 15.3 percent among imaging technicians, and 12.7 percent among pharmacy technicians. In addition, the AHA indicates that hospitals are having increasing difficulties recruiting these same professionals over the preceding 2-year period.

In my own State of Washington, the Washington State Hospital Association reports vacancy rates of 14.3 percent among ultrasound technologists, 11.3 percent among radiology technicians, and 10.9 percent among nuclear medicine technologists. These vacancy rates have a real effect on the hospitals in my State. When I meet with hospital officials back home, they always tell me how the lack of technicians affects patient care.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics projected that in the period 1998- 2008, the United States would need a total of 93,000 new professionals in clinical laboratory science by creating 53,000 new positions and filling the 40,000 existing vacancies. That averages 9,000 openings per year for technicians, and yet academic institutions are producing only 4,990 graduates annually. If these numbers stay constant, we will be short by 43,100 needed technicians in 2008.

According to the American Hospital Association, declining enrollment in health education programs contributes to the critical shortages of health care professionals. Similarly, data from a November 2002 study of 90 institutions by the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, shows a 3-year period of decline in enrollment in cardiovascular perfusion technology, cytotechnology, dietetics, emergency medical sciences, health administration, health information management, medical technology, occupational therapy, rehabilitation counseling, respiratory therapy, and respiratory therapy technician programs. As an indication of a worsening situation, data from the 2002-2003 academic year, alone, show that dental hygiene, physician assistant, and speech-language pathology and audiology should be added to this list.

While having an adequate number of health professionals in our country is key to ensuring access to health care for all of us, certainly one of the key populations for whom a healthy supply of health professionals is vitally important for is our senior population.

The U.S. Census Bureau reports that rapid growth of the population age 65 and over will begin in 2011 when the first of the baby boom generation reaches age 65 and will continue for many years. From 1900 to 2000, the proportion of persons 65 and over tripled, going from 4.1 percent to 12.4 percent.

The baby-boom generation's movement into middle age, a period when the incidence of heart attack and stroke increases, will produce a higher demand for therapeutic services. Medical advances now enable more patients with critical problems to survive, but in order to do so and maintain a high quality of life, these patients may need extensive therapy.

Along with the aging of the population came an increase in the number of Americans living with one, and often more than one, chronic condition. Today, it is estimated that 125 million Americans live with a chronic condition, and by 2020 as the population ages, that number will increase to an estimated 157 million, with 81 million of them having two or more chronic conditions. Twenty-five percent of individuals with chronic conditions have some type of activity limitations. Two-thirds of Medicare spending is for beneficiaries with five or more chronic conditions.

Many individuals with chronic conditions rely on family caregivers. Approximately 9 million Americans provide such services, and on the average, they spend 24 hours a week doing so. Caregivers aged 65-74 provide an average of 30.7 hours of care per week and individuals aged 75 and older provide an average of 34.5 hours per week.

Women are more likely than men to have chronic conditions, in part because they have longer life expectancies. These same women are caregivers to other chronically ill persons. In addition, 65 percent of caregivers are female, and of all caregivers, nearly 40 percent are 55 years of age and older.

Physicians report that their training does not adequately prepare them to care for this type of patient by providing education and offering effective nutritional guidance. Those aspects of care can be provided by allied health professionals, but many of them need better preparation to treat and coordinate care for patients with chronic conditions. While much emphasis is placed on curative forms of care, additional efforts must be devoted to slowing the progression of disease and its effects.

One example of the effectiveness of allied health interventions may be illustrated by a study funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research, and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research--since renamed the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The investigation showed that significant benefits resulted from a 9-month occupational therapy intervention intended to reduce health-related declines urban, multiethnic, independent-living older adults. The majority of study participants, 73 percent, lived alone and 26 percent reported at least one disability. Important health-related benefits attributable to the intervention continued over a 6-month interval in the absence of further treatment.

The bill my colleagues and I introduce today, like the Nurse Reinvestment Act in the 107th Congress, is intended to provide incentives for individuals to seek and complete high quality allied health education and training. Furthermore, the bill will provide additional funding to ensure that such education and training can be provided to allied health students so that the U.S. healthcare industry with have a supply of allied health professionals needed to support the Nation's health care system in this decade and beyond.

The bill offers allied health education, practice, and retention grants. Education grants will be used to expand the enrollment in allied health education programs, especially by underrepresented racial and ethnic minority students, and provide educational opportunities through new technologies and methods, including distance-learning. Practice grants are intended to establish or expand allied health practice arrangements in noninstitutional settings to demonstrate methods that will improve access to primary health care in rural areas and other medically underserved communities. Retention grants are intended to promote career advancement for allied health personnel.

Grants will also be made available to health care facilities to enable them to

carry out demonstrations of models and best practices in allied health for the purpose of developing innovative strategies or approaches for retention of allied health professionals. These grants will be awarded to a variety of geographic regions, and to a range of different types and sizes of facilities, including facilities located in rural, urban, and suburban areas.

Furthermore, this bill will give the Secretary of HHS, acting through the Administrator of HRSA, the authority to enter into an agreement with any institution that offers an eligible allied health education program to establish and operate a faculty loan fund to increase the number of qualified allied health faculty. Loans may be granted to faculty who are pursuing a full-time course of study or, at the discretion of the Secretary, a part-time course of study in an advanced degree program.

I am especially proud of the provisions of this legislation regarding the National Health Service Corps program, the brain child of Senator Warren Magnuson of Washington. The NHSC program, of course, encourages students in the health professions such as doctors and dentists to serve in underserved areas throughout our nation in return for loan repayment assistance. And, like the NHSC program, this Allied Health Reinvestment Act will establish a scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking allied health education in exchange for service by those individuals in rural and other medically underserved areas with allied health personnel shortages.

There are a number of organizations supporting this bill, and I thank them for that support. Among them, the list includes, but is not limited to:

Washington State Hospital Association

Health Work Force Institute (Seattle, WA)

American Association for Respiratory Care

American Association of Community Colleges

American Clinical Laboratory Association

American Dental Hygienists' Association

American Dietetic Association

American Health Information Management Association

American Hospital Association

American Physical Therapy Association

American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science

American Society for Clinical Pathology

American Society of Radiologic Technologists

Association of Academic Health Centers

College of Health Deans

Midwest Regional Deans Group

Myositis Association

National Association of EMS Educators

National Cancer Registrars Association

National Network of Health Career Programs in Two-Year

Colleges

Northeast Regional Deans Group

In addition to these organizations, I would also like to express my appreciation to the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, ASAHP, for its support of the legislation as well as its ongoing efforts to address the need for allied health professionals and allied health faculty.

ASAHP, founded in 1967, has a membership that includes 108 institutions of higher learning throughout the United States, as well as several hundred individual members. ASAHP publishes a quarterly journal and also conducts an annual survey of member institutions. This annual survey, called the ``Institutional Profile Survey,'' is used for, among other purposes, collecting student application and enrollment data. These data substantiate that there is a pressing need to address existing allied health workforce shortages, which have been further exacerbated by declines in enrollment that have occurred for 4 straight years.

In the survey conducted during the period September-November 2004 for the 2004-2005 class starting in fall 2004, the results from 90 academic institutions indicate that in 16 of the 20 professions studied, available classroom seats were not filled. For example, only 33 percent of enrollment capacity was reached for health information management programs in these schools. Given the emphasis on increasing the use of information technology in health care such as conversion to electronic patient records, that figure is disturbingly low.

Similarly, the survey shows that enrollment levels were low in the following professions: rehabilitation counseling, 44 percent, emergency medical sciences, 66 percent, cytotechnology, 69 percent, and medical technology, 77 percent. Severe workforce shortages already exist in the two laboratory professions and emergency medical personnel will play a key role as first responders in dealing with any bioterrorism incident that might occur.

Using data from the Institutional Profile Survey, as well as the General Accounting Office, U.S. Census Bureau, and other sources, ASAHP has compiled what I believe to be a compelling rationale in its support for the Allied Health Reinvestment Act that Senators Bingaman, Lieberman, and I introduce today. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this Rationale for an Allied Health Reinvestment Act from the Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth epidemic in its tracks.

Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the meth fight.

While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic, started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina. Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent.

This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi- national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young children.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to ensure that law enforcement has the resources it needs to address and eventually solve the methamphetamine crisis in this country. My bill is entitled the Arrest Methamphetamine Act of 2005. It would create a new formula-based grant program for States that have enacted sophisticated laws governing the sale of the precursor products used to make meth. My legislation is designed to help communities cope with the myriad problems being caused by meth, and ultimately to stop the growing meth epidemic in its tracks.

Never before has creating a separate program to finance the battle against meth been so critical. I am dismayed to see that the President's fiscal year 2006 budget request mortally wounds the COPS program and that his budget finishes off the already slashed and reconstituted Byrne grants program. These two mechanisms have provided anti-meth funds for years now, and each year, the administration's efforts to undermine the COPS program and the Byrne grants program further jeopardize law enforcement efforts against meth and the many other important law enforcement-related initiatives that these two programs have carried out for so many years. While I plan to work hard with my colleagues to restore funding to the COPS and Byrne programs generally, I do not see that our efforts to save these programs every year from the administration's chopping block is the best way to ensure that necessary financial resources are there for all aspects of the meth fight.

While the administration was busy slashing the $499 million COPS program all the way down to $22 million, the meth problems that the COPS program addresses only got worse. Meth abuse, as an epidemic, started in the West and the Midwest, but has more recently begun to move east. Meth use and production is exploding in North Carolina. Georgia law enforcement officials recently had one of the largest meth busts on record, and Missouri, Iowa and Minnesota have been inundated by severe meth problems. In 2003, methamphetamine was identified as the greatest drug threat by 90.9 percent of local law enforcement agencies in the Pacific region. By comparison, only 5.3 percent of agencies reporting identified cocaine as their biggest threat, followed by marijuana at 2.1 percent and heroin at less than 1 percent.

This epidemic of meth has permeated the most urban and most rural communities. Meth labs range in sophistication from being run by multi- national organized crime rings to back alley cook shops, and they exist in crudely converted farm houses and in illicit high-financed facilities run by Mexican drug rings. Meth victims are of all ages, and there is heart-wrenching data and anecdotes on meth addiction of mothers, and the impact of adult meth addiction on their very young children.

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

Mr. President, the Constitution provides the Senate with a responsibility to evaluate Presidential nominations. This is a responsibility that I take very seriously because the Senate's role ensures strong leadership at the very highest levels of the Federal Government.

Today, the Senate considers the nomination of Judge Michael Chertoff to be Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Leading the Department of Homeland Security is not an easy job, and requires an individual with tireless dedication, unending perseverance, and strong leadership.

The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, led by Chairman Collins and ranking member Lieberman, conducted a thorough examination of Judge Chertoffs record, and I support the committee's recommendation to endorse his nomination.

The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is tasked with a serious responsibility--leading our country's unified effort to secure America and protect the homeland from terrorist attacks. To take this job, Judge Chertoff has walked away from a lifetime appointment to third circuit, a position for which I supported him. I commend him for embracing this new responsibility and answering the call of the President and of all American citizens.

In the wake of the attacks on September 11, our Nation was confronted with a challenge to revamp our homeland security posture and adopt a strategic plan to defend America from global threat of terrorism. Many of our efforts to strengthen homeland security have been successful, and were long overdue. But there are critical networks and infrastructure that need additional attention to reduce their vulnerability to terrorist attacks, such as: our food supply, telecommunications and financial networks, rail transportation infrastructure, and chemical facilities.

In Washington State, we have looked to the Department of Homeland Security to assist us in preparing our first responders and providing them with the financial, training, and information resources they need to meet new security requirements. I would urge Judge Chertoff to continue to work closely with local first responders from my state who are on the front lines of ensuring that Washington's ports, borders, and critical infrastructure are secure.

I am confident that Judge Chertoff will be confirmed today. I am eager to begin working with him to continue to improve the security of Washington State and all of America's homeland.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joining with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This legislation is similar to the version of S. 2505, the Low Power Radio Act of 2004 that was introduced last Congress.

This bill removes once and for all the barriers keeping low power FM service from flourishing in communities of all sizes across the country, while protecting important radio reading services. Under the existing law, my State has only a handful of low power FM stations. If this bill becomes law, the Federal Communication Commission will be able to move forward and license additional low power FM stations to serve communities all across the State of Washington such as Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island and Auburn.

Let me review the history of this issue for the Senate. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed completely the ownership caps restricting the number of stations that any one company can own nationwide. The Act has led to an unprecedented level of consolidation and mergers in the U.S. radio industry. Additionally, within a local market, the rules allows ownership of up to eight radio stations, on a sliding scale, depending on total number of stations in the market.

Five years ago, the FCC adopted rules creating a new, low power FM radio service in response to public concerns that the increased consolidation of radio ownership weakened the local character of radio.

Low power FM stations serve the public interest by providing significantly greater opportunities for citizen involvement in broadcasting in communities across the country. Eligible licensees are non-profit, government or educational institutions, public safety or transportations services. No existing broadcasting licensee or media entity can have an ownership interest or any program or operating agreement with any low power FM stations.

In many media markets, the number of independent local voices has dropped significantly, replaced by giant corporations replicating formats and programming from across the country. Voice-tracking, a practice in which a DJ either pre-records part of a program for a local station or for a station out of the immediate market, is not a substitute for true localism.

With fewer independent outlets available for artists to get airplay for a given genre of music, particularly for newer acts, there is a perception in some quarters of the music industry that you need to resort to the reprehensible practices such as payola in order to be heard by the public.

During its proceeding on low power FM, the FCC conducted tests on the effects of these low power stations on full power FM broadcasts for various types of radio receivers. The FCC engineering reports concluded that low power FM signals would not cause interference with the signals to full power FM stations within their service areas. Based on the results of interference testing, LPFM stations were not required to protect stations three channels away from inference as is required for full power stations. These rules allowed radio frequencies for LPFM stations to become available in larger media markets where under the old rules of third adjacent channel separation, there was no space available for them on the crowded radio dial.

While the public reaction to low power FM was positive, the reaction of FM broadcasters, both commercial and non-commercial, was negative. Congress was convinced to add a rider to the 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations law that effectively undid the provisions in the FCC rules, and once again required third adjacent channel separation. Congress also required the FCC to perform a study examining the impact on interference on the third adjacent channel.

Over two million dollars later, the results of the study validated the FCC's original analysis. Last year, I joined the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in sponsoring a bill that would have accepted the results of this latest engineering study to undo the 2001 appropriations rider. It also addressed specific concerns about protecting stations providing reading services over the radio frequencies to assist the blind. Under the Senator from Arizona's (Mr. McCain) leadership, the Commerce Committee reported the low power FM bill out favorably with an amendment, but it did not come to a vote on the floor.

The time has come to move ahead with this proposal. The U.S. radio industry has experienced an unprecedented wave of consolidation and mergers since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The consolidation trend has raised barriers of both size and cost for new broadcasters. The legislation we introduce today allows new entrants into broadcasting activities and new voices on our public airwaves. I hope the Commerce Committee will again act quickly on this legislation.

Mr. President, today, I am pleased to be joining with the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, as a cosponsor of the Local Community Radio Act of 2005. This legislation is similar to the version of S. 2505, the Low Power Radio Act of 2004 that was introduced last Congress.

This bill removes once and for all the barriers keeping low power FM service from flourishing in communities of all sizes across the country, while protecting important radio reading services. Under the existing law, my State has only a handful of low power FM stations. If this bill becomes law, the Federal Communication Commission will be able to move forward and license additional low power FM stations to serve communities all across the State of Washington such as Bainbridge Island, Vashon Island and Auburn.

Let me review the history of this issue for the Senate. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed completely the ownership caps restricting the number of stations that any one company can own nationwide. The Act has led to an unprecedented level of consolidation and mergers in the U.S. radio industry. Additionally, within a local market, the rules allows ownership of up to eight radio stations, on a sliding scale, depending on total number of stations in the market.

Five years ago, the FCC adopted rules creating a new, low power FM radio service in response to public concerns that the increased consolidation of radio ownership weakened the local character of radio.

Low power FM stations serve the public interest by providing significantly greater opportunities for citizen involvement in broadcasting in communities across the country. Eligible licensees are non-profit, government or educational institutions, public safety or transportations services. No existing broadcasting licensee or media entity can have an ownership interest or any program or operating agreement with any low power FM stations.

In many media markets, the number of independent local voices has dropped significantly, replaced by giant corporations replicating formats and programming from across the country. Voice-tracking, a practice in which a DJ either pre-records part of a program for a local station or for a station out of the immediate market, is not a substitute for true localism.

With fewer independent outlets available for artists to get airplay for a given genre of music, particularly for newer acts, there is a perception in some quarters of the music industry that you need to resort to the reprehensible practices such as payola in order to be heard by the public.

During its proceeding on low power FM, the FCC conducted tests on the effects of these low power stations on full power FM broadcasts for various types of radio receivers. The FCC engineering reports concluded that low power FM signals would not cause interference with the signals to full power FM stations within their service areas. Based on the results of interference testing, LPFM stations were not required to protect stations three channels away from inference as is required for full power stations. These rules allowed radio frequencies for LPFM stations to become available in larger media markets where under the old rules of third adjacent channel separation, there was no space available for them on the crowded radio dial.

While the public reaction to low power FM was positive, the reaction of FM broadcasters, both commercial and non-commercial, was negative. Congress was convinced to add a rider to the 2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations law that effectively undid the provisions in the FCC rules, and once again required third adjacent channel separation. Congress also required the FCC to perform a study examining the impact on interference on the third adjacent channel.

Over two million dollars later, the results of the study validated the FCC's original analysis. Last year, I joined the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the Senator from Vermont, Mr. Leahy, in sponsoring a bill that would have accepted the results of this latest engineering study to undo the 2001 appropriations rider. It also addressed specific concerns about protecting stations providing reading services over the radio frequencies to assist the blind. Under the Senator from Arizona's (Mr. McCain) leadership, the Commerce Committee reported the low power FM bill out favorably with an amendment, but it did not come to a vote on the floor.

The time has come to move ahead with this proposal. The U.S. radio industry has experienced an unprecedented wave of consolidation and mergers since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The consolidation trend has raised barriers of both size and cost for new broadcasters. The legislation we introduce today allows new entrants into broadcasting activities and new voices on our public airwaves. I hope the Commerce Committee will again act quickly on this legislation.

I thank the Senator from Maryland for her recognition and hard work on this issue. I thank her for the recognition of the fact that we have two women Senators from Washington State. We achieved a milestone this past November when we elected a woman Governor, making us the first State in the Union to have two women Senators and a woman Governor. We are going to speak loudly about the issues impacting women.

I come to the Senate floor to join my women colleagues. I could, I am sure, expound on a lot of comments that have been made in the last several weeks that have gotten some notoriety: the fact that somehow women may be genetically different than men and not be able to excel in math and science or the comment that a colleague made about the fact that now we may be getting closer to pay equity in the future.

The bottom line of this debate on Social Security reform has to be that women are impacted with greater significance because of their longevity in life and because of the shortfall in pay equity that still exists in this country. Where does that leave American women when it comes to Social Security reform?

I could talk a lot about whether the private accounts are great foundations

for this country. I have some grave concerns about them. I also believe at this point in time taking money from the deficit, basically adding to our deficit and paying into what are to be these private accounts may not be in the best interests of the American people.

The point I make this morning is that we are at a time in which women are still getting the short end of the stick in this country. If we want to think about anything in the Social Security reform debate, why don't we think about the way Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments are calculated. Social Security and cost-of-living adjustments do not take into consideration that seniors, older women, are living longer and actually have a greater percentage of their incomes go toward particular goods and services to a larger degree than young people's incomes do. Try buying prescription drugs, try balancing things in retirement and living off of the benefits.

Women are particularly challenged, but older women, being the most impacted by Social Security, will continue to have this challenge for decades to come. So the benefit structure of Social Security is very important. The current pace of change that is happening in the way our economy is transitioning has not necessarily impacted that. In 1963, women earned 59 cents to every $1 men earned. It is true women now earn considerably more than they did in the 1960s and 1970s, but in spite of the steady growth of earnings, the pay gap between men and women has basically been stalled for the past two decades, averaging slightly under 20 percent less than men.

The Senate may be a very unique institution in that it is the only place where you actually have a guarantee of pay equity between men and women. Yet in 2003 women actually saw their earnings decline for the first time since 1995. That means real median earnings of men who worked full time year round remained unchanged in 2002 at roughly over $40,000, and real median earnings of women with similar work experience actually decreased 0.6-percent to about $30,000. As a result, women still only make 76 cents for every $1 that is now earned by men. That is down from what it was in 2000 at 77 cents. We are going in the wrong direction. And now someone wants to suggest that we tinker with Social Security benefits. Think of my mother and the support she had as a woman getting Social Security also from her husband and his Social Security, not having worked, or women who have not worked all their lives in the work place and, instead, being full-time mothers. Now we will say we will calculate Social Security on your earnings. Great. Well, let's have pay equity for women so it is calculated on an equal footing. We are living longer, we are earning less, and the President's proposal will impact us the most. Related to the pay equity statistics I just mentioned, for women's families, this means $24 less a month than men to spend on groceries, child care, and other expenses. In fact, the Institution of Women's Research did an estimate that families in America lose over $200 billion of income per year in this wage gap because of unequal pay that women's families lose, an average of $4,000 annually.

I am asking my colleagues, at a time when we are talking about how to secure the future, how are we going to secure that future for women who are living longer, in retirement, who have this inequity in the system? That is why I am going to introduce a bill later today basically suggesting that we change the cost-of-living index to specifically reflect the current costs that women are experiencing--women and men, alike--in retirement age.

But I think what we need to do now is look at this legislation that is before the Senate and say to ourselves, How is it fair to have the inequity with women when we are not doing anything to close the wage gap? It is actually going in the wrong direction. That includes making sure women in retirement, in the retirement structure of Social Security that we talk about and consider before this body, actually reflect the reality that is happening in America today.

I have talked to many of my constituents about this issue. I am sure we are going to talk to many more over the next several months. One of my constituents, a woman I happened to meet in a local convenience store, said to me: The thing I want is my Social Security money. They have paid into the system. They want something for it.

Frankly, they think when we take Social Security and use it off- budget, to basically say this is how we are covering our huge deficit, that is basically taking from Social Security and not protecting it. What they want to know is, Why don't we get a better return on our investment? Why don't we take, just like a retirement account that she or her husband gets, or a State pension program that gets a higher return, and, basically, take the money that is paid into Social Security and get a higher return on it as well? Yes, and I would say some of my constituents probably think they themselves could do a good job at making private investments. But they do not necessarily think everybody in America will be able to make those decisions at a time in which our economy continues to sag, and there are some people who are unemployed and not fully benefitting and paying into the system, or, as I said earlier about the income-earning disparity between men and women.

Madam President, if I could ask for 30 seconds.

Madam President, I thank the Senator.

As we go into this debate, the women are going to be loud and clear. This plan for Social Security impacts us to a greater degree than our male counterparts because of our longevity and because of the disparity in wages.

Let's talk about how we make Social Security better for women and for all Americans.

Mr. President, last week, I announced that I would oppose the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General. I share many of the views on and reasons for opposing this nominee that my other colleagues have detailed--among them, the very grave concerns raised about Judge Gonzales's role in producing the so-called ``torture memos.''

But, I rise today to share with the Senate a reason for opposing this nominee that is particularly important to my home State of Washington. It is a reason that has not gotten much attention, but it is an issue I want to highlight because I feel Senators should know about it when they cast their vote on this nominee.

Among the reasons I am opposing Mr. Gonzales is his connections to Enron and his failure to commit to recuse himself from the Department of Justice's ongoing Enron investigation.

The Attorney General of the United States, as the chief law enforcement officer in the land, holds a special independent place in the government. After carefully listening to Judge Gonzales during his Senate hearings and reading his responses to questions, I do not have confidence that a Justice Department under his leadership will conduct the Enron investigations with sufficient vigor and independence.

We want our Attorney General to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is no matter how politically inconvenient and no matter who asks for his advice.

This administration's ties to Enron are common knowledge. In audiotapes released last summer, we heard Enron traders bragging about Enron's status as the number one contributor to the President's election campaign in 2000. We know that former Enron executives even had a hand in bankrolling the President's Inaugural festivities last month. So I think it's important for my colleagues to also realize that Judge Gonzales himself also had substantial ties to Enron while he was an attorney in private practice and then a candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

Given the significance of this case and the past recusal of the outgoing Attorney General, Judge Gonzales should have made clear his intention to recuse himself from that investigation. Let me repeat this important point. Attorney General Ashcroft knew to recuse himself because of similar political ties to Enron.

Before his confirmation, I wanted the same assurances from Gonzales, or at least an explanation of why these former professional and political ties to Enron do not constitute grounds for recusal. I got none.

Let me make a few comments about the status of Federal investigations into the Enron mess, and why I believe it is so troubling that Judge Gonzales has to date refused to recuse himself from this matter.

It's my belief that, to date, the Department of Justice has done a good job in pursuing the case against Enron. I stood on this floor about seven months ago and applauded the work of the Enron Task Force when it handed down indictments of top executives including Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling last summer.

And the U.S. Attorneys in Northern California have been equally successful in bringing charges and securing guilty pleas from some of the Enron traders

implicated in the conspiracy to manipulate our Western power markets.

But this investigation is not finished. The Enron investigation must be allowed to proceed, free from any potential political interference from special interests, particularly the interests under investigation.

I would also note that we have not seen the same vigor--the same pursuit of justice--by other departments and agencies within the Administration, and in particular the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. FERC is charged with protecting American consumers from precisely the types of fraud Enron perpetrated in our Nation's energy markets.

FERC is also run by three Bush administration appointees who had ties to Enron. In fact, the Senate Government Affairs Committee uncovered Enron memos recommending their appointment to the White House.

To date, these FERC appointees have failed to take any meaningful action to provide the victims of Enron's power market manipulations with any measure of relief. At every step of the way, it has taken public embarrassment to get FERC to pursue an Enron investigation of any integrity. Or in the words of a November 2002 report by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, ``Over and over again, FERC displayed a striking lack of thoroughness and determination with respect to key aspects of Enron's activities.'' Since then, the situation has only deteriorated. FERC's Enron investigation to date has been marked by a lack of aggressive action.

In fact, I'm going back to my office in just a few minutes to participate in a conference call with officials from the Snohomish Public Utility District in my home State of Washington. We are going to air publicly, for the first time, new Enron audiotapes. Shockingly, these Enron tapes were just discovered sitting in one of Enron's Houston warehouses. They were left behind by the same Federal regulators that are supposed to be defending our Nation's consumers from the types of fraud Enron perpetrated in our energy markets.

Only a small portion of these new tapes have been processed.

But on these tapes, the American public will hear Enron employees during the company's collapse bemoaning the fact they couldn't get promoted unless they ``cooked the books;'' speculating that ``everyone knew,'' and that ``nothing happened at Enron that Ken Lay didn't bless.'' This is evidence that was left behind.

New evidence will also show Enron traders fabricating excuses to shut down a power plant--on the very same day that rolling blackouts hit California and disrupted the Western power market. The blackouts affected at least half a million people that day. As we learned with the recent Northeast/Midwest blackout, these are serious matters. Not only do blackouts cost hundreds of millions of dollars in lost economic activity, they pose serious risks to human health and safety. They are no laughing matter. In my mind, this represents a whole new level of callousness.

But what Enron did was not just disgraceful on a human level--it was also illegal. It was a direct violation of power market rules and a direct violation of a DOE emergency order issued by former Secretary Bill Richardson the very same day.

And yet, our Federal agencies are not unearthing this new evidence. The FERC remains content to sit on its hands, more than four years after the Enron collapse. Utilities in the West are actually being sued by Enron for even more money. Yet FERC stands by, while Washington State ratepayers wait for the other shoe to drop.

The consumers in my State, in the States of Nevada and California, deserve justice. But what they've gotten are years of process--a procedural shell game.

We need more aggressive action from our Nation's top law-enforcement officer.

This is why I was so deeply troubled to read Judge Gonzales's answers to questions posed by Members of the Judiciary Committee in this matter. I want to thank my colleague, the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, for asking these important questions. In his answers, Judge Gonzales would not state whether he would recuse himself, and he would not be specific about how his former ties to Enron might impact the Department of Justice's investigation of that company.

In his responses, Mr. Gonzales stated, ``I did some legal work for Enron over 10 years ago. I am told the work was totally unrelated to the collapse of the company.'' He added that ``it would be premature for me to commit to recuse myself from ongoing Enron prosecutions.''

Mr. Gonzales was clearly asked to provide more specificity, more details and more of a commitment on what Americans can expect from the Justice Department leadership on the Enron investigation. These answers of the nominee were not satisfactory.

I find this particularly troubling, given the fact Judge Gonzales has a clear history of employment related and political ties to Enron, and a track-record that leads me to question his judgment and his independence from the President.

As I stated at the outset, we want our Attorney General to uphold the law no matter who the criminal is no matter how politically inconvenient--and no matter who asks for his advice.

So I will vote against Judge Gonzales's nomination today, for this and other important reasons. But I am also here to note that the Federal Enron investigation is not over. It is likely that Judge Gonzales may be confirmed as Attorney General later today. Perhaps Judge Gonzales will recuse himself after he is confirmed.

But whatever his decision, I am here today to put Judge Gonzales on notice. If there is any hint whatsoever that the Enron Task Force is being undermined, underfunded, or otherwise hindered, this Senator will not stand for it. The Enron investigations must be allowed to proceed. And this Senator will be watching every single step of the way.

This Senate deserves straight answers from the President's nominees. Corporate criminals deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And the victims of Enron's fraud in our Nation's power markets deserve relief.

What Enron did to my constituents in Washington and to countless others across the Nation was disgraceful.

Given these issues, I have substantial lingering questions about whether Mr. Gonzales would exercise independent judgment, especially when a clear commitment to conduct investigations and uphold a strict standard of conduct is needed.

I also have serious concerns about Judge Gonzales's legal judgment. As White House Counsel, his office generated a legal opinion on whether the President is bound by domestic and international law on torture, which the government recently repudiated as legally faulty.

Such a repudiation calls Judge Gonzales's judgment into question, judgment that is critically important for our country's top attorney. It also suggests he is not independent of the President, which is essential for his new Cabinet role. Further, Judge Gonzales's changed position on the torture memos in the weeks before his confirmation hearings appears to demonstrate political convenience, not a truly self-reflective change in his thinking on these matters.

Had Judge Gonzales recognized the serious problems with the judgments he made on these issues and given convincing assurances that he understands that his new role will require a different approach and a new allegiance to the law, I might have been convinced to defer to the President on this nomination. Without those assurances, and a clear commitment to ensure that there is no appearance that the Justice Department may take a difference course on the Enron investigation, I cannot support his nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

In conclusion, many of my colleagues have spoken about this nomination. They have talked about a variety of issues, and certainly one of those issues is the independence of the Attorney General. That is clearly an issue that is at the forefront of my interest today.

The reason is because ongoing in the Department of Justice, and I wish ongoing in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, is an investigation of Enron and Enron fraud. This is an issue that Attorney General Ashcroft decided, when taking office--and the evidence started to pour in of market

manipulation--he basically looked at his record and background of having taken contributions from Enron and he recused himself from the Enron investigation and task force.

Now we have before us a new Attorney General nominee who not only has accepted campaign contributions from Enron, he actually worked to represent them at the law firm in his private practice, specifically working for the Enron company as an outside counsel.

If our past Attorney General clearly identified a conflict of interest and basically stepped aside to make sure he was not in any way unduly influencing the Enron investigation, why should not this nominee have clearly done the same thing--in particular, giving answers to the Judiciary Committee that he would recuse himself?

I am not a member of the Judiciary Committee. I am a past member of that committee, but I certainly asked my colleagues to submit questions to Judge Gonzales asking him if, in fact, he would recuse himself and to be explicit about any other ways in which he could ensure that this Enron investigation continued with its independence. Judge Gonzales would not commit to recusing himself from this situation.

Because he will not recuse himself, I cannot, today, give him my vote knowing that he will achieve the independence this agency so much needs to have when it comes to this investigation.

Just today, this very day, Snohomish County PUD will be releasing new information, new audiotapes from Enron employees that just happened to be left behind at the Enron Houston facility that investigators forgot to claim. These tapes actually have Enron employees discussing the fact that superiors, Enron traders, had asked them to cook the books.

We also will see other tapes and information that basically says that various, what are called, cogeneration facilities, that Enron had business relationships with, were actually asked to take generation offline, to come up with a scheme of why they should stop production of these powerplants. The result was a blackout in California in the next few days following this time period--something that is very troubling to us in the Northwest.

We have spent billions of dollars of economic impact, and we want an investigation to continue to take place. We want the independence that the Federal Energy regulators should have in this case in determining that just and reasonable rates have not been charged by Enron. We want the Department of Justice to do its job, unfettered by any kind of influence, and continue to pursue all those involved with the Enron case until justice is given and ratepayers have relief in the West.

So it is unfortunate that we cannot get Judge Gonzales to make a commitment up front about where he is going to be in recusing himself on this very important matter that has had great fiscal consequence to the people of the Northwest.

I wish, given all the other aspects of this nomination, I could overlook this issue or other questions that some of my colleagues have brought up, but I cannot.

As a young woman, when I first learned about our Attorney General, at a time and era when a White House and President and outside influence said that the Attorney General should just follow the line of what was happening in the White House, we had Attorneys General who decided, instead of not carrying out the law, they were not going to be influenced by the White House; that they would rather resign than not carry out the law. That is the kind of independence we want to see in an Attorney General.

The case is clear against Enron. The case for recusing himself is clear. Unfortunately, I cannot support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales today because I am not sure he will recuse himself in this case.

The ratepayers of Washington State need relief. We do not want to continue to have to be the policemen on the beat investigating this case, finding new evidence, proving that wrongdoing has happened, continuing to prove how much we have been hurt. We want Federal regulators to do their job and give us relief.

I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Gonzales's written responses to Judiciary Committee questions be printed in the Record.