Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about increasing educational opportunities by improving a tax-free way to save for college. A college education is invaluable in today's workforce, requiring new skills and a post-secondary education to stay competitive in our global economy. That's why I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help make paying for college easier:

The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act both expand current Coverdell education savings accounts by permanently increasing the annual contribution amount to $5,000.

The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct from income the amount they contribute to their education savings account. The Education Savings Act keeps the current conditions under Coverdells that investment earnings grow tax-free and withdrawals from their account are tax-exempt when their child goes to school, but permanently increases the minimum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000.

Both bills provide a financial incentive to put away money for college where parents have the ability to save now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals.

It's incredible how fast kids grow. One day they're in kindergarten, and the next day they're packing up and leaving for college. What's even more incredible is that higher education costs grow just as fast as they do.

I understand that parents have a lot to worry about, especially when their children are young. But with rising college costs, parents must also be concerned about how to pay for their child's college education. Mounting tuition costs and prices for books and materials, plus room and board have made colleges and universities less affordable for most families.

College is expensive. There are many parents whose children have aimed to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because of rising costs.

In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported national trends which--if remain unaddressed--will have adverse consequences for expanding students' opportunities to pursue a higher education and future career.

This report found that over the last two decades, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private colleges have not only grown more rapidly than inflation, but faster than family incomes, increasing the share of family income that is needed to pay for tuition and other college expenses. From 1991 through 2001, tuition at four- year public colleges and universities rose faster than family income in 41 states, including my home State of Washington.

The Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board reports that, over the last ten years, tuition and fees have far outpaced family income, increasing 89 percent compared to 51 percent in per capita personal income in my state. In comparison, the cost of most consumer goods increased an average of 20 percent during the same time. And, per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this period.

As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. In 1981, loans accounted for 45 percent and grants for 52 percent of federal student financial aid. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent.

Unfortunately, the steepest increases in college and university tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship. Just in the past three years, our economy has experienced a loss of 1.8 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. It is my priority that we prepare our workers for the jobs of today and the careers of the future. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, we need to make college more affordable. We must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy.

In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education.

Workers with a college degree make 75 percent more than those without. A college education pays tremendous dividends--not just to individuals, but also to their entire communities. On average, a one- year increase in a metropolitan area's educational level raises wages by three to five percent.

Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Let's face it, we're not all going to pay for college by winning the lottery. Saving for college early and often will help lift the pressures off of parents who are feeling the financial squeeze of increased tuition and fees.

For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide a needed relief for the middle class. The purpose of education savings plans are to increase saving by increasing net returns. Today, parents can put up to $2,000 a year into a Coverdell Education Savings account. The actual contribution is not tax deductible, but all earnings in this account are free from taxes when they are withdrawn to pay for school.

However, the current $2,000 annual limit on Coverdell contributions will be repealed in 2010 unless Congress acts to extend it. If we don't extend the contribution level, the maximum contribution will drop to $500.

While the current tax benefit makes it easier to save for college, the Education Savings Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 and making this change permanent ensures greater savings for families. By increasing the amount parents can put aside for their children's college savings, middle-income parents will be able to more easily save for their child's college education.

Say for example, parents start saving when their child turns eight years old. If they put away just $100.00 a month--at an interest rate of savings of four percent--by the time their kid turns 18, their account would have earned more than $12,400 in interest. Parents will save over $3,100 in taxes when that child is old enough to go to school.

In addition to projected savings, parents also have the option to save now. The College Savings Act would offer families the ability to deduct their contributions each year----

Both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings Act are financial incentives for people to save by allowing families to deduct the amount they contribute and take tax-free earnings when their child is ready to go to school, would further lessen the financial burden that parents bear by saving money early and often.

Permanently expanding the Coverdell maximum contribution from its current threshold of $2,000 to $5,000 a year and allowing this contribution to be tax deductible is a common-sense savings vehicle that keeps future college costs from spinning out of control. Increasing contribution caps will make school more affordable at a time when a college education and advanced job training is becoming more and more important for economic success.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about increasing educational opportunities by improving a tax-free way to save for college. A college education is invaluable in today's workforce, requiring new skills and a post-secondary education to stay competitive in our global economy. That's why I am introducing two pieces of legislation that will help make paying for college easier:

The Education Savings for Students Act and College Savings Act both expand current Coverdell education savings accounts by permanently increasing the annual contribution amount to $5,000.

The College Savings Act would allow families to deduct from income the amount they contribute to their education savings account. The Education Savings Act keeps the current conditions under Coverdells that investment earnings grow tax-free and withdrawals from their account are tax-exempt when their child goes to school, but permanently increases the minimum annual contribution from $2,000 to $5,000.

Both bills provide a financial incentive to put away money for college where parents have the ability to save now through deductible contributions or bank on projected savings through tax-deferred earnings and withdrawals.

It's incredible how fast kids grow. One day they're in kindergarten, and the next day they're packing up and leaving for college. What's even more incredible is that higher education costs grow just as fast as they do.

I understand that parents have a lot to worry about, especially when their children are young. But with rising college costs, parents must also be concerned about how to pay for their child's college education. Mounting tuition costs and prices for books and materials, plus room and board have made colleges and universities less affordable for most families.

College is expensive. There are many parents whose children have aimed to go to college, but soon discover they can't afford it because of rising costs.

In 2002, the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education reported national trends which--if remain unaddressed--will have adverse consequences for expanding students' opportunities to pursue a higher education and future career.

This report found that over the last two decades, the cost of attending two- and four-year public and private colleges have not only grown more rapidly than inflation, but faster than family incomes, increasing the share of family income that is needed to pay for tuition and other college expenses. From 1991 through 2001, tuition at four- year public colleges and universities rose faster than family income in 41 states, including my home State of Washington.

The Washington State Higher Education Coordinating Board reports that, over the last ten years, tuition and fees have far outpaced family income, increasing 89 percent compared to 51 percent in per capita personal income in my state. In comparison, the cost of most consumer goods increased an average of 20 percent during the same time. And, per capita personal income in Washington increased 51 percent during this period.

As a result, more students and families at all income levels are borrowing more money than ever before to pay for college. In 1981, loans accounted for 45 percent and grants for 52 percent of federal student financial aid. In 2000, loans represented 58 percent of Federal student financial aid, and grants represented 41 percent.

Unfortunately, the steepest increases in college and university tuition have been imposed during times of greatest economic hardship. Just in the past three years, our economy has experienced a loss of 1.8 million private sector jobs and 2.7 million manufacturing jobs. It is my priority that we prepare our workers for the jobs of today and the careers of the future. If we want to maintain our economic competitiveness, we need to make college more affordable. We must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy.

In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that six of the ten fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education.

Workers with a college degree make 75 percent more than those without. A college education pays tremendous dividends--not just to individuals, but also to their entire communities. On average, a one- year increase in a metropolitan area's educational level raises wages by three to five percent.

Affordability is key to expanding opportunities to go to college. Let's face it, we're not all going to pay for college by winning the lottery. Saving for college early and often will help lift the pressures off of parents who are feeling the financial squeeze of increased tuition and fees.

For these families, Coverdell Education Savings plans provide a needed relief for the middle class. The purpose of education savings plans are to increase saving by increasing net returns. Today, parents can put up to $2,000 a year into a Coverdell Education Savings account. The actual contribution is not tax deductible, but all earnings in this account are free from taxes when they are withdrawn to pay for school.

However, the current $2,000 annual limit on Coverdell contributions will be repealed in 2010 unless Congress acts to extend it. If we don't extend the contribution level, the maximum contribution will drop to $500.

While the current tax benefit makes it easier to save for college, the Education Savings Act would increase the annual contributions from $2,000 to $5,000 and making this change permanent ensures greater savings for families. By increasing the amount parents can put aside for their children's college savings, middle-income parents will be able to more easily save for their child's college education.

Say for example, parents start saving when their child turns eight years old. If they put away just $100.00 a month--at an interest rate of savings of four percent--by the time their kid turns 18, their account would have earned more than $12,400 in interest. Parents will save over $3,100 in taxes when that child is old enough to go to school.

In addition to projected savings, parents also have the option to save now. The College Savings Act would offer families the ability to deduct their contributions each year----

Both of these bills, the College Savings Act and the Education Savings Act are financial incentives for people to save by allowing families to deduct the amount they contribute and take tax-free earnings when their child is ready to go to school, would further lessen the financial burden that parents bear by saving money early and often.

Permanently expanding the Coverdell maximum contribution from its current threshold of $2,000 to $5,000 a year and allowing this contribution to be tax deductible is a common-sense savings vehicle that keeps future college costs from spinning out of control. Increasing contribution caps will make school more affordable at a time when a college education and advanced job training is becoming more and more important for economic success.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004.

Methamphetamine, meth, use is growing exponentially in parts of our country and is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. We must act aggressively to attack the meth problem with a long-term commitment of resources or we will soon have a national drug crisis on the scale of an epidemic.

Meth is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug. Individuals who use meth risk becoming addicted to this life-destroying drug with just one use. Meth use has ruined the lives of many people who prior to their addiction to meth were successful contributors to our society and our economy.

Meth use triggers an avalanche of other problems for addicts' families and our communities. The use of meth is often linked to child abuse and the destruction of families. It contributes substantially to the perpetration of violent crimes, particularly burglary and crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, including identity theft. The stories I have heard about meth users are horrible--parents so focused on feeding their habit that they forget their children are right there with them, hungry, and without any love or care. Users become aggressive, violent and unstable. Often, the kids end up users as well.

Sadly, our children are discovering meth, and the results will be devastating. According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in ten high school students have used meth. The statistics are clear: the problem is bad, and it's getting worse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that while the proportion of teens who know users of LSD, cocaine, and heroin has dropped sharply from last year, the percentage of teens who know a user of methamphetamines has risen from 12 percent in 2003 to 15 percent this year.

The devastation to our kids' lives is hitting our rural communities first. The Columbia University researchers also found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas.

And meth is not just a health and social problem; it is also an enormous environmental problem. There are two types of local meth labs: so-called ``super-labs,'' which are capable of manufacturing large volumes of methamphetamines and clandestine labs set up by users to manufacture small amounts of the drug for personal use. These clandestine labs can be set up in the woods, in hotel rooms or even in the back seat of a car. They can be

set up anywhere, but are usually located where there is little traffic or population.

These hazardous ``labs'' can go unnoticed for years, but they produce major chemical hazards and pose severe fire risk. Meth production generates extremely hazardous byproducts, such as anhydrous ammonia, ether, sulfuric acid, as well as other toxins that are volatile, corrosive, and poisonous. When these substances are illegally disposed of in rivers, streams and other dump areas, explosions and serious environmental damage can and does result. Our State and local environmental agencies are responsible to cleanup these hazardous sites and it is taking a toll on their resources.

The use of meth is spreading rapidly from the western region of the United States across the rural Midwest and to the east. The spreading availability of methamphetamine is illustrated by increasing numbers of meth seizures, arrests, indictments, and sentences. And those numbers are rising across the country. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine is widely available throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and is increasingly available in the Great Lakes and the Southeast.

Similarly, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Working Group reports that, in 2002, methamphetamine indicators remained highest in West Coast areas and parts of the Southwest, as well as Hawaii. Meth abuse and the crimes associated with it are spreading in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Texas, as well as the East Coast and mid-Atlantic regions. This problem, once perceived as a ``western state'' problem, has become a nationwide problem, growing at an extraordinary rate.

My State has shown that a cooperative effort--law enforcement working side-by-side with those handling cleanup, intervention, treatment, child and family support, drug courts and family drug courts, and education--is effective at addressing this problem. Thanks to the Washington Methamphetamine Initiative and the ``Methamphetamine Action Teams,'' multi-disciplinary teams situated in each county across the State, meth production was cut back by 25 percent last year. Washington State has dropped from second in the Nation to sixth in the production of meth. The comprehensive, holistic approach my State has taken to combat meth is working well, and I believe that our program can be a model for the national fight.

By making intervention, treatment and family support as important as arrests and prosecution, we are effectively overcoming the secondary problems that meth creates by addressing the root causes, not just the social symptoms. By taking this approach we are not simply growing prison populations and pushing the problem to regions not previously impacted by meth, but attacking the growth of the use of this terrible drug.

We in Washington State have also learned that laws restricting the sale of large quantities of precursor drugs such as ephedrine make it more difficult for users to produce meth, and this tactic has reduced the number of clandestine labs in the State.

This approach to fighting meth use has been very successful, but it takes money. And although there has been an explosion in the use of meth, Federal funding has been cut. Each year, States with a growing meth problem are required to go through a politicized process seeking Federal funding through the earmark process. And each year, the funds are being cut.

These challenges to our States mean only one thing: we need to make funding to combat meth permanent. Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of meth.

That is why I am introducing the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. This bill will create a supplemental grant to augment the Department of Justice's Byrne Formula Grant Program to provide block grants to help States confront their meth problems.

Under my bill, States will be able to apply for a formula grant if they meet two prerequisites: the State must have a comprehensive, long term plan to address methamphetamine use, manufacture and sale; and the State legislature must commit to enacting laws to limit the sales of precursor products (the commercially available products used to make meth, such as ephedrine). Where a State has met these two requirements, that State will be eligible to receive a Federal formula grant.

States have discretion as to how to use the funds. The activities funded may include arrest, lab seizures and clean up, child and family support services, community based education, awareness and prevention, intervention, treatment, Drug Court and Family Drug Court, community policing, the hiring of specially trained law enforcement, State and local health and environmental department support, and prosecution.

The Confronting Methamphetamines Act also provides for planning grants, $100,000 per State, so States can develop long-term strategies to address meth. We have seen in Washington and in other States that comprehensive plans to address all aspects of meth--from use to manufacture to sale--have the best and most efficient results. Through this provision, I want to encourage States to consider the long-term situation when they take the initial steps in combating meth.

To assure that the best practices to confront meth deployed in our local communities are shared across the country, my bill requires the U.S. Attorney General to collect data, to establish a national clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and to provide technical assistance to States or local agencies.

Like the Byrne Formula Grants, distribution to eligible States will be based on State population. The supplemental allocation to an eligible State will be no less than the base amount of $250,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining funds allocated to the other eligible States on the basis of the state's relative share of total U.S. population.

The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2005 and 2006, elevating the funding to $200 million for the subsequent three years, assuring that the funds are available as the meth problem grows and more States become plagued by the problem of meth.

I have received letters supporting this legislation from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Washington State's Governor's office, representing State law enforcement, environmental protection, health and human services and the Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative, and the Pierce County Alliance, essentially the epicenter of Washington State's response to methamphetamines. These letters reflect the level and breadth of concern for our law enforcement, drug addiction care providers, the courts and environmental protection agencies.

We have to give a strong signal to the State and local governments that we recognize the meth problems that they are facing, we are committed to support long-term comprehensive strategies to confront the problem, and will assure availability of substantial federal funds to help confront this startlingly rapidly growing problem.

This legislation assures the funding and continuity of Federal support desperately needed by our State and local governments. It assures that States have the opportunity to develop a long-term comprehensive strategy to combat meth, and gives those on the front lines in this battle the flexibility to use the federal dollars as they see fit, consistent with their long-term plan. I urge the Senate to support this bill and plan to work aggressively with the other body to bring it into law as promptly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the four letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004.

Methamphetamine, meth, use is growing exponentially in parts of our country and is spreading across the country at an alarming rate. We must act aggressively to attack the meth problem with a long-term commitment of resources or we will soon have a national drug crisis on the scale of an epidemic.

Meth is an extremely dangerous and highly addictive drug. Individuals who use meth risk becoming addicted to this life-destroying drug with just one use. Meth use has ruined the lives of many people who prior to their addiction to meth were successful contributors to our society and our economy.

Meth use triggers an avalanche of other problems for addicts' families and our communities. The use of meth is often linked to child abuse and the destruction of families. It contributes substantially to the perpetration of violent crimes, particularly burglary and crimes of substantial cost and personal pain to the victims, including identity theft. The stories I have heard about meth users are horrible--parents so focused on feeding their habit that they forget their children are right there with them, hungry, and without any love or care. Users become aggressive, violent and unstable. Often, the kids end up users as well.

Sadly, our children are discovering meth, and the results will be devastating. According to a 2001 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly one in ten high school students have used meth. The statistics are clear: the problem is bad, and it's getting worse. The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University reports that while the proportion of teens who know users of LSD, cocaine, and heroin has dropped sharply from last year, the percentage of teens who know a user of methamphetamines has risen from 12 percent in 2003 to 15 percent this year.

The devastation to our kids' lives is hitting our rural communities first. The Columbia University researchers also found that eighth graders living in rural America are 104 percent more likely to use amphetamines than eighth graders in urban areas.

And meth is not just a health and social problem; it is also an enormous environmental problem. There are two types of local meth labs: so-called ``super-labs,'' which are capable of manufacturing large volumes of methamphetamines and clandestine labs set up by users to manufacture small amounts of the drug for personal use. These clandestine labs can be set up in the woods, in hotel rooms or even in the back seat of a car. They can be

set up anywhere, but are usually located where there is little traffic or population.

These hazardous ``labs'' can go unnoticed for years, but they produce major chemical hazards and pose severe fire risk. Meth production generates extremely hazardous byproducts, such as anhydrous ammonia, ether, sulfuric acid, as well as other toxins that are volatile, corrosive, and poisonous. When these substances are illegally disposed of in rivers, streams and other dump areas, explosions and serious environmental damage can and does result. Our State and local environmental agencies are responsible to cleanup these hazardous sites and it is taking a toll on their resources.

The use of meth is spreading rapidly from the western region of the United States across the rural Midwest and to the east. The spreading availability of methamphetamine is illustrated by increasing numbers of meth seizures, arrests, indictments, and sentences. And those numbers are rising across the country. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, methamphetamine is widely available throughout the Pacific, Southwest, and West Central regions and is increasingly available in the Great Lakes and the Southeast.

Similarly, the National Institute on Drug Abuse's Community Epidemiology Working Group reports that, in 2002, methamphetamine indicators remained highest in West Coast areas and parts of the Southwest, as well as Hawaii. Meth abuse and the crimes associated with it are spreading in areas such as Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and Texas, as well as the East Coast and mid-Atlantic regions. This problem, once perceived as a ``western state'' problem, has become a nationwide problem, growing at an extraordinary rate.

My State has shown that a cooperative effort--law enforcement working side-by-side with those handling cleanup, intervention, treatment, child and family support, drug courts and family drug courts, and education--is effective at addressing this problem. Thanks to the Washington Methamphetamine Initiative and the ``Methamphetamine Action Teams,'' multi-disciplinary teams situated in each county across the State, meth production was cut back by 25 percent last year. Washington State has dropped from second in the Nation to sixth in the production of meth. The comprehensive, holistic approach my State has taken to combat meth is working well, and I believe that our program can be a model for the national fight.

By making intervention, treatment and family support as important as arrests and prosecution, we are effectively overcoming the secondary problems that meth creates by addressing the root causes, not just the social symptoms. By taking this approach we are not simply growing prison populations and pushing the problem to regions not previously impacted by meth, but attacking the growth of the use of this terrible drug.

We in Washington State have also learned that laws restricting the sale of large quantities of precursor drugs such as ephedrine make it more difficult for users to produce meth, and this tactic has reduced the number of clandestine labs in the State.

This approach to fighting meth use has been very successful, but it takes money. And although there has been an explosion in the use of meth, Federal funding has been cut. Each year, States with a growing meth problem are required to go through a politicized process seeking Federal funding through the earmark process. And each year, the funds are being cut.

These challenges to our States mean only one thing: we need to make funding to combat meth permanent. Permanent Federal funding support for meth enforcement and clean-up is critical to the efforts of State and local law enforcement to reduce the use, manufacture and sale of meth.

That is why I am introducing the Confronting Methamphetamines Act of 2004. This bill will create a supplemental grant to augment the Department of Justice's Byrne Formula Grant Program to provide block grants to help States confront their meth problems.

Under my bill, States will be able to apply for a formula grant if they meet two prerequisites: the State must have a comprehensive, long term plan to address methamphetamine use, manufacture and sale; and the State legislature must commit to enacting laws to limit the sales of precursor products (the commercially available products used to make meth, such as ephedrine). Where a State has met these two requirements, that State will be eligible to receive a Federal formula grant.

States have discretion as to how to use the funds. The activities funded may include arrest, lab seizures and clean up, child and family support services, community based education, awareness and prevention, intervention, treatment, Drug Court and Family Drug Court, community policing, the hiring of specially trained law enforcement, State and local health and environmental department support, and prosecution.

The Confronting Methamphetamines Act also provides for planning grants, $100,000 per State, so States can develop long-term strategies to address meth. We have seen in Washington and in other States that comprehensive plans to address all aspects of meth--from use to manufacture to sale--have the best and most efficient results. Through this provision, I want to encourage States to consider the long-term situation when they take the initial steps in combating meth.

To assure that the best practices to confront meth deployed in our local communities are shared across the country, my bill requires the U.S. Attorney General to collect data, to establish a national clearinghouse for best practices in addressing the meth problem, and to provide technical assistance to States or local agencies.

Like the Byrne Formula Grants, distribution to eligible States will be based on State population. The supplemental allocation to an eligible State will be no less than the base amount of $250,000 or 0.25 percent of the amount available for the program, whichever is greater, with the remaining funds allocated to the other eligible States on the basis of the state's relative share of total U.S. population.

The bill authorizes $100 million per fiscal year 2005 and 2006, elevating the funding to $200 million for the subsequent three years, assuring that the funds are available as the meth problem grows and more States become plagued by the problem of meth.

I have received letters supporting this legislation from the Fraternal Order of Police, National Association of Drug Court Professionals, the Police Executive Research Forum, the Washington State's Governor's office, representing State law enforcement, environmental protection, health and human services and the Washington State Methamphetamine Initiative, and the Pierce County Alliance, essentially the epicenter of Washington State's response to methamphetamines. These letters reflect the level and breadth of concern for our law enforcement, drug addiction care providers, the courts and environmental protection agencies.

We have to give a strong signal to the State and local governments that we recognize the meth problems that they are facing, we are committed to support long-term comprehensive strategies to confront the problem, and will assure availability of substantial federal funds to help confront this startlingly rapidly growing problem.

This legislation assures the funding and continuity of Federal support desperately needed by our State and local governments. It assures that States have the opportunity to develop a long-term comprehensive strategy to combat meth, and gives those on the front lines in this battle the flexibility to use the federal dollars as they see fit, consistent with their long-term plan. I urge the Senate to support this bill and plan to work aggressively with the other body to bring it into law as promptly as possible.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the four letters of support be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I rise to thank the managers of this bill for their hard work and perseverance in trying to get the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission passed and their accommodation of many Members with various amendments. Obviously they have been working long before this time period, through the August recess and since we have come back, and now we are pushing towards the final stages.

I thank the managers of the bill for including a provision in the bill, a Cantwell-Sessions amendment dealing with the Visa Waiver Program and closing a loophole that I call the Ressam loophole. That is a loophole that allowed a terrorist to go from Algiers to France to Canada and then load up his car with explosives and head to the U.S.- Canadian border at the State of Washington with plans to set off those explosives, potentially, at LAX Airport or perhaps somewhere along the way of the west corridor.

What the amendment did was to basically say to those who are our partner countries that the United States wants to make sure that people coming into our country on visas meet certain biometric standards so we know who people are. If we actually knew Mr. Ressam's true identity when he left France to go to Canada, he would have been stopped at the Canadian border. He could have been stopped earlier in the process if we actually knew who this individual was.

So what this Cantwell-Sessions amendment did, and, again, I thank the managers for adding it, was to help us identify the types of technologies that we hope our partner visa waiver countries also adopt for their biometrics on visas allowing people into their country.

To put it simply, our borders will only be as strong as our partner countries' and as they adopt standards. The last thing we want to do in the United States is to have a process by which we are more sure of people we are giving visas to, only to have, then, individuals who are looking for ways to get access to the United States to go to Mexico or Canada or France or Germany and then find their way to easy entry into the United States by creating a new identity.

The estimates are that there are millions of passports that have been lost or stolen and that individuals easily create new identities. But if our partner countries in the Visa Waiver Program, such as Mexico, France, Germany, also create biometric on their visas for people coming into their countries, we will have a safer process of understanding and stopping terrorists at their point of origin as opposed to continuing to allow them to travel around the globe, creating new identities or possibly getting easy access to our neighboring countries and then easily sneaking across U.S. borders.

I thank the managers for their hard work and diligence on this issue and for working to accommodate so many Members on what are very challenging issues. We have done great work on making our borders more secure since 9/11. We have put resources there. We have tightened our programs. We have worked on the US VISIT implementation. But we need to continue to understand that our security will only be as good as the security of our partner nations, working in this battle to fight terrorism around the globe. I very much appreciate the managers being included in that.

If I could say, I am also pleased that the conference report on the JOBS bill is moving. It seems to be progressing. While we are working to finish up this 9/11 report and finish up the legislation that implements it, I am hopeful we will be successful in passing the FSC/ ETI conference report before we leave for this recess that is scheduled for this Friday. That is very important legislation to help companies that want a level playing field on the trade front, helping large companies in my State or exporters such as Boeing and Microsoft--there are many more--to get a level playing field.

There is also tax fairness in this JOBS bill for Washingtonians and seven other States that have not been able to deduct their sales tax from the Federal income tax. I am glad to see that recision is in the bill. I hope we can move forward this week to give the fairness back to those States that have been unjustly penalized on that for about the last 18 years. While this 9/11 legislation is moving through, I hope we are also successful in moving the JOBS bill through and that we can continue to work diligently on that process.

As I see no other Members who are ready to offer amendments, I will say one more word of thanks to the incredibly hard work that is going on in the State of Washington by the U.S. Geological Survey. Many people realize that there is an imminent eruption of Mount St. Helens about to take place. We have seen the ash and steam of several smaller events occur in the last several days. But because of the investment this country has made in the Department Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey, we have so much more information at hand today.

In 1980, we heard the final cry of a U.S. Geological Survey worker who said, ``Vancouver, Vancouver, this is it.'' Then he ended up losing his life to the explosion, as did 57 other residents of the Northwest. The impact of that volcanic explosion was so significant it impacted various cities such as Yakima and Vancouver.

Today, because seismologists, geologists, meteorologists, and vulcanologists also have been working together, we have much more data and we have been able to advise the larger community on the hazards we are facing with another eruption of Mount St. Helens. I thank the men and women who are doing terrific work in informing all of us so we can make great plans, so that aviation, transportation, and the health and security of the emergency management system can do their jobs, because we have good science and information.

I thank the managers of this bill for their hard work and perseverance on an issue that many times during this debate didn't seem to be very decisive, as Members have many different ideas about how we approach terrorism and what our country needs to do to harden our targets and to improve our intelligence operation. But I want to thank the diligence of these Members because they are doing the work to understand the details of this legislation. They have been doing that work for the summer while we were out on recess, and what they did is work to understand these amendments in detail. I appreciate their adoption of the Cantwell-Sessions amendment, which I do believe will help us not only make U.S. borders more secure but make our partner countries' borders more secure and stop terrorism at the point of origin. I thank the managers for their help and support for the passage of this amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to celebrate the opening of the National Museum of the American Indian, the first national museum dedicated to the preservation, study, and exhibition of the life, languages, literature, history, and arts of the first residents of the Americas. This museum works in collaboration with the native peoples of the western hemisphere to protect and foster their cultures by reaffirming traditions and beliefs, encouraging contemporary artistic expression, and empowering the Indian voice. And since it was designed primarily by Native Americans, it is truly a first-hand look at both the history and future of indigenous American culture.

Fittingly, it is not a traditional museum, but rather a unique, living space, located in close proximity to nature. The building's design reflects the solar calendar and equinoxes, with an eastern orientation and entrance. Historical native stories are shared through the representation and interpretation of Indian cultures as living phenomena throughout the hemisphere. The NMAI is rich with imagery, connections to the earth, and historical meaning.

Washington state can be particularly proud of its tribes, which are well-represented. For example, an exhibit about original Native Treaties includes the 1855 Treaty of Neah Bay, which allowed the Makah Tribe to take whales from ``accustomed grounds and stations.'' An exhibit about the contemporary lives of American Indians contains items from our very own Yakama Nation including a carton of Chief Yakama apples, a jar of Broken Spears pickled asparagus and a poster for the Yakama Nation Beauty Pageant.

Native Americans from other parts of the country who now call Washington State home also played important roles in designing this stunning new space. Johnpaul Jones, an architect of Choctaw and Cherokee heritage who lives in Seattle, was one of four project designers, and helped design and shape this museum to make it a dynamic place for all Americans to explore the contributions of American Indians to our culture.

Preston Singletary, a Tlingit artist who also lives in Seattle, contributed a piece to the exhibit ``Our Universe,'' which focuses on American Indian cosmology and the spiritual relationship between the tribes and nature. His piece, a sand-carved glass, depicts the northwestern coastal legend of the ``Raven Steals the Sun.''

Today, as we welcome this wonderful new museum, let us also remember that as a nation, we must do more to fulfill the promises our country made to our native peoples. As a Senator who represents 29 tribes and a member of the Indian Affairs Committee, I will continue to work to see our nation meet these obligations, and to celebrate the contributions of Native Americans to our great Nation.

Mr. President, last week, Washington State and the Nation lost a dedicated civic servant who

gave much of his life to serving the public when former Senator Brock Adams passed away following a long battle with Parkinson's disease.

Today, his family and friends are gathered to remember his life and legacy--and it is truly a long legacy--from fighting for civil rights to protecting the environment to standing up for people suffering from

Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words in honor of the 20th anniversary of the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry, located on the University of Washington campus. The center has made numerous contributions to the world of manufacturing, the University of Washington, and the progress of its students that I wish to recognize today.

In 1984, CPAC was initiated by the National Science Foundation as an Industry/University Cooperative Research Center with the specific mission of supporting the restoration and continuous improvement of U.S. industry by enhancing globally competitive manufacturing.

Through the discovery and development of new analytical technologies for use in the manufacturing process, CPAC research has developed new measurement tools to provide continuous real-time measurement needed for industrial and environmental processes. The information gathered with these tools is used to implement process optimization and control, thus enabling product and process quality management, environmental protection, pollution prevention, crisis alerting, and worker safety.

For 20 years, award-winning faculty, research scientists, postdoctoral associates, visiting scientists, and graduate students have gathered at CPAC to collaborate on research projects. As a result, over 100 graduate students have been granted their Ph.D.s while working with CPAC, making immediate contributions to their employers because of their exposure to the challenges of industry.

Through partnership with leaders in industry, and the sharing of research funding between the University of Washington, leading global corporations such as the Boeing Company and Systematix Controls, several national laboratories, and the National Institute of Standards & Technology, CPAC has produced more than 20 patented inventions, meeting the demand for advanced technology in the aerospace, petroleum, chemical manufacturing, pharmaceutical and food industries.

Streamlining the manufacturing process is critical to meeting the ever-changing demands of the world's economy. Long-term economic trends--including technological advances and increasing globalization-- will continue to increase the demand for greater efficiencies, and improved processes. The fact that the majority of original industry partners continue to work with the CPAC to improve their products is a testament to the relevancy and quality of the work conducted at the center. I congratulate the Center for Process Analytical Chemistry on their 20th anniversary.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to talk about what so many Americans are thinking about as they turn on their television today, and that is the 9/11 Commission report that is being issued by many of our former colleagues and partners in trying to address the security needs of our Nation. I am sure many Americans are going to want to know from this 9/11 report, is it going to result in us getting off our orange alert? Is it going to help us in providing better security across America?

One of the things we have to think about is the fact that this report now needs to be put into legislative action by this body. I thank the Commission, including Governor Keane, former Congressman Hamilton, and former Senator Slade Gorton, for their contribution to this report and their hard work. The voluminous report has a lot of recommendations, but I would like to call out two or three of those recommendations that are particularly important for us as a body to address when we return in September.

First and foremost is the need for us to focus on international cooperation. We in the Northwest learned that lesson very well when Ahmed Ressam came across the Canadian border with a car full of explosives on his way to LAX Airport. Many people in America know that story and know that a good customs agent was able to stop Ressam and confiscate those goods, and that act was never perpetrated on American soil. We also know after that, 9/11 did happen. So the question for us in America is, What are we going to do to make sure we have good international cooperation?

What is interesting about the Ressam case is Mr. Ressam started his efforts in Algiers, was successful in getting into France, then successful in creating a new identity and getting into Canada. Even though that was an illegal entry into Canada, he was able to remain in Canada and then create a Canadian passport and birth certificate and try to gain access to the United States.

As I said, the route he took through several countries to try to get to Port Angeles, WA, to start his journey shows the need we have in this country for international cooperation as it relates to our visa program and our visa standards. This is something we have seen a delay in in the last several years and something we need to pay particular attention to in the Senate to make sure this visa standard program gets implemented and gets implemented as soon as possible.

While we in the United States can have a visa entry program based on a biometric standard, that standard will only be as good as the standard that is then adopted by Canada and Mexico, our European partners, our Middle East allies, and various other countries around the world. By that, I mean if Mr. Ressam had entered France on a biometric standard which showed, perhaps with fingerprints or facial recognition, who Ahmed Ressam was, the various times he tried to perpetrate a false identity to get into the United States, we would be able to track that individual.

We know this is very important because we know that of the hijackers on 9/11, many of them had various trips back and forth to the United States. While we want to continue to have good international commerce with many countries and have people travel to the United States, we need a better security system with our visa standard, and we should make a top priority of getting such international cooperation based on biometrics.

I can say the same for international cooperation on port security. Washington State, being the home to many ports, needs to focus on the fact that cargo containers come in every day into the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Vancouver, and various parts of Washington State. What we need is not to wait until the last minute for cargo containers to get into the Seattle area to find out whether they have explosives or whether the containers have been tampered with, but to have point of origin cooperation with countries all over the world to make sure that security system is deployed at the time the cargo leaves its port.

Here are two examples, one of human deployment of people coming to the United States and another of goods and services in which international cooperation is essential. That is why I take to heart the recommendation on page 20 of the 9/11 Commission report, the executive summary saying that:

Unifying strategic intelligence and operational planning

against Islamic terrorists across foreign-domestic divide

with a National Counterterrorism Center.

What I believe the report is saying is we have to have the cooperation of our allies and the global community in fighting terrorism and doing so in a cooperative effort if we are going to be successful in the United States.

Secondly, while I think the report emphasizes the focus of a flat organization, from my 2 years on the Judiciary Committee and review of the incidents of 9/11 through the FBI and their organization and changes that have been made to that organization, one thing that is very clear about the 9/11 report is that a flat, decentralized organization and network of information must be accomplished.

While the report does talk about consolidation and the central focus, the important thing to understand is we are facing an asymmetrical threat by terrorists. We are not facing a superpower. We are not facing a well-oiled, well-heeled organization with a lot of support that we can track, detect, and analyze on a large-scale basis; it is very decentralized, with a lot of information flowing from a lot of different cells through different parts of the international community. What is important about that is if we are going to face that asymmetrical threat and meet that challenge, having a large bureaucracy facing an asymmetrical threat of lots of cells presents a challenging problem.

That is why it is very important, as Special Agent Coleen Rowley pointed out to many of the people in the intelligence community and the FBI community, the information that existed in different FBI offices throughout America but was not shared, was not pieced together with the other intelligence information by the CIA about potential people entering and exiting the country, needs to be pieced together in a flat organization.

Critical to this report and our success is for us to monitor the new organizations and agencies, such as Homeland Security, the structure of the FBI and CIA, and any new structures coming out of the 9/11 report to make sure we are keeping a flat organization. That flat organization is about getting access to as much information as possible.

Just as the Intelligence Committee report released by my colleagues in the last 10 days showed and just as this 9/11 report shows, the third thing we need to do is make sure we use the information we acquire and put much more focus and analysis behind that. While that sounds simple and it sounds like something that can be easily forgotten, I remind my colleagues that in 1998, ADM David Jeremiah, under a CIA governance order study, was asked the question: Why did the CIA miss India's testing of a nuclear bomb? Why did we as a country not really understand that was happening? Well, the No. 1 recommendation from that report was not enough analysis, and we had a culture that was not really assessing the 21st century threats to our country.

That is a report that was done in 1998 about a particular part of intelligence, in a particular part of the world, that missed something. We had a report that basically is saying the same things the 9/11 report is saying today, that information and analysis are critical to our success on international efforts at understanding information and potential threats or use of weapons of mass destruction.

To me, it is very important that we take to heart the fact that we need more analysts, and how that analyst structure is going to work. We live in an information age. You can say that terrorists, in their decentralized structure, are going to create much more information about their prospects, their attention to different projects, their communication with cells across the globe. It is this information that we need to acquire, put together, and have analysts working on, on an ongoing basis.

It is safe to say we need a dramatic increase in the number of analysts that we need to recruit into Government, new processes to put this information into a network, and access and assess it on an ongoing basis. I believe this is going to be a very hard challenge for us in Congress because we will see it as something that an agency is assigned to do, and we will forget about the challenges that face each of these agencies as they change their culture and change their structure.

We must keep in mind we are facing a threat of a very decentralized nature. To face a threat of a very decentralized nature we must build organizations and teams of people, including analysts, who also think in a decentralized way.

The report also talks about technology and the role that technology can play. I am a big proponent of technology in this information age. Something like a biometric standard on fingerprints and identification can be helpful. The report goes into a great deal of detail about implementing those at borders, at airports, at various other facilities. Yes, I want to expedite the speed and flow of individuals in and out of the country and have the United States continue to remain a great place where people want to visit. But in adopting these technology solutions, we need to work hard, as the 9/11 report says, to make sure the civil liberties and privacy rights of individuals are protected.

The United States has its privileges. The right to privacy is one of those. So we need to work on this recommendation in the report with that in mind. I think the structure within the FBI and Homeland Security needs to have someone, as these recommendations are implemented, who can--as databases are created, as information is assessed--help create the safeguards that are necessary.

But that should not impede us from working on an international basis to make sure that information about terrorist threats is shared through numerous countries in the world, and shared on a systematic database form with the United States. That is where I believe we have been lacking since 9/11. We have had a visa program and standard that we set in the PATRIOT Act and other bills as an objective. Yet we have failed to execute those. We should use this report today to continue our sharpened focus on getting that standard implemented so we can be sure the same people, like the 9/11 attackers, are not moving in and out of the country.

This report is so critical for us now to join together on these specific recommendations. We must not continue to focus on the past but focus on what we can do to get off of orange alert. It is important that we look at international cooperation, organizations, resources for analysts, new technology, and protecting civil liberties. But as I think about this issue, I think about the significant threats we face from those asymmetrical forms. Yet the results of those could be very catastrophic. That is why we need to get this program implemented.

I look to my colleagues, when we return in September, to keep away from what now has been an analysis of the past and look forward to implementing these solutions as quickly as possible, giving Americans better security in the future.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, over the last 3\1/2\ years, the Senate has approved 198 of President Bush's judicial nominees: more than were confirmed during President Reagan's first term, more than confirmed during the first President Bush's term, and more than were confirmed during President Clinton's second term, when the other party controlled this body.

The reality is that the Senate has made remarkable progress approving this President's nominees. Today, there are fewer Federal judicial vacancies than at any time in the last 14 years.

This is true because both sides of the aisle have been able to work together to identify talented, qualified, experienced nominees-- nominees who can put their own ideologies aside and uphold the law.

We have a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington state. Members of Washington State's legal community, the White House, and my colleague Senator Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. I am proud of our work. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees--including two who were confirmed just last month--and I believe it is a sound model for other States.

Unfortunately, the nomination before us today--that of William Myers to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals--represents a break with this spirit of cooperation and fairness. As a Senator who represents a State in the Ninth District, I feel that I must explain why I have concluded that I have no choice but to oppose this nomination.

Other Senators have spoken about Mr. Myers' inexperience. I agree that the nominee before us has limited experience. He has never been a judge, he

has never tried a jury case, he has never served as counsel in any criminal litigation, and he has tried just twelve cases to verdict or judgment.

I am troubled that this administration believes such a candidate is an appropriate choice to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals, just one level below the U.S. Supreme Court. But I would like to spend my time discussing some other problematic aspects of this nomination.

The decision this body makes on the nomination before us will have a long-lasting impact on the States of the Ninth Circuit. For one thing, the person appointed to fill this seat on bench will receive a lifetime appointment. For another, the Ninth Circuit decides on many cases that can have dramatic impacts on land management policy and environmental protections. Decisions about how to use our natural resources and public lands can have irrevocable consequences.

With this in mind, I am concerned that this nominee has compared the federal government's management of public lands to ``the tyrannical actions of King George'' over the American colonies.

More troubling in his view of the Commerce Clause. In the face of decades of established law, Mr. Myers has argued for a more limited interpretation of this key portion of the Constitution, which underpins much of Federal environmental law. Rhetoric is one thing; radically re- interpreting the Constitution is another.

I am disappointed that the Senate has spent so much time debating a judicial nominee with such a poor record on protecting the environment, instead of taking up legislation that could actually improve the environment.

And in addition to public lands issues, the Ninth Circuit often considers cases regarding Native American issues. Yet here, too, Mr. Myers's record is troubling.

In one case, Myers reversed existing policy of the Department of the Interior, without seeking public opinion or input from affected Tribes. His decision, which relied on his interpretation of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, FLPMA, allowed a mining company to contaminate a large area of land in California that was sacred to the Quechan tribe.

But when a Federal judge reviewed the case--the only time a Federal judge reviewed Myers' work--he concluded, ``The Solicitor misconstrued the clear mandate of FLPMA.''

It is for reasons like this that the National Congress of American Indians--which has never in its history opposed a Federal judicial nominee--opposes this nominee. Together, 560 tribes have spoken up and voiced their strong concerns with his nomination.

The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, which represents tribes in Washington, Oregon, Montana, and the nominee's home State of Idaho, has also never previously opposed a judicial nominee. But they believed it was necessary to step forward and oppose Mr. Myers. As they noted in a letter to me and other Northwest Senators, ``We do not take this step lightly--but when a nominee has acted with such blatant disregard for federal law and our sacred places, we must speak out.''

I ask unanimous consent that the Affiliated Tribes' letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, for the 29 tribes in my home State of Washington, and the many tribes throughout the West, this is a troubling report.

To be clear, I am not opposing Mr. Myers's nomination simply because we disagree on issues. I have voted for many of this President's nominees whose views on a range of issues differ from my own.

I have had ideological differences with many of the nominees put forth

by this administration, yet I have voted to approve the overwhelming majority of those candidates. I do not believe that a difference in a nominee's views alone justifies voting against him or her.

But I cannot assent to a nominee who I do not believe will uphold the law when it conflicts with his ingrained political philosophy. Unfortunately, I believe Mr. Myers is such a nominee.

Mr. Myers has written, ``Judge Bork's judicial philosophy was well within the parameters of acceptable constitutional theory, worthy of representation on the Supreme Court.'' More importantly, Mr. Myers indicated his support of ``judicial activism'' in his discussion of Bork's views: ``Interpretivism does not require a timid approach to judging or protecting constitutionally guaranteed rights . . . interpretivism is not synonymous with judicial restraint and may require judicial activism if mandated by the constitution.''

A Pacific Northwest newspaper, the Oregonian, summed up Mr. Myers's nomination this way: ``Myers has overwhelmingly looked out for industry interests while antagonizing a vast array of conservation groups, tribes, labor unions and civil-rights organization.'' I ask unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.

Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about our legislative priorities, and something I think this body needs to address before we adjourn next week. It is the issue of the reliability standards for our electricity grid and the fact that I think we are still putting the grid in jeopardy by not adopting reliability standards.

Even Enron activities in California, by its own admissions, jeopardized the reliability of the western electricity grid. That is certainly unacceptable. We need to have in place rules that explicitly ban market manipulation and rules that make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable.

In the documentation that has now been acquired through the Enron task force, federal agencies and organizations such as the Snohomish County Public Utility District, which is trying to get out of lawsuits and manipulated contracts that Enron is pursuing against it, it became clear that Enron continued to manipulate the market until its bankruptcy. Even in one scheme, called Get Shorty, Enron discussed in detail, and I quote from their comments and documents:

This [Get Shorty] is obviously a sensitive issue because of

reliability concerns. It would be difficult to justify our

position if the lights go out because ancillary services were

not available. The reason these services were not available

is because we were selling them without actually having them

in the first place.

In the Enron documentation and memos shared among various employees in the company about ways to scheme and make more money, they very well knew they were manipulating the market. They did not have these services, but sold them anyway at a higher cost, and thereby jeopardizing reliability.

Another summer is upon us and we have yet to take action on legislation that would move us forward in ensuring the integrity of the electricity grid by protecting consumers from these market manipulation schemes and putting regulatory standards in place for reliability.

Next month, in fact, will mark the first anniversary of the blackout in the Northeast and the Midwest that caused basically 50 million consumers and businesses in the Northeast and Midwest to lose power. In some cases that power was lost up to 4 days.

That blackout could have been avoided. When you think about not just the inconvenience to consumers but the fact it cost our economy $4 to $10 billion as a loss of economic activity, it is outrageous we are not stepping up and passing electricity reliability standards legislation as a stand-alone bill before we recess for the summer.

We know why the blackout occurred. A few months ago, in April, the U.S.-Canadian power system outage task force issued a report and the Department of Energy, together with the Canadian counterpart, convened a panel of experts that concluded this was something we could avoid if we put reliability standards in place. In fact, the No. 1 recommendation of that task force, which was reported to various Members of Congress and various committees, is to ``make reliability standards mandatory and enforceable, with penalties for non- compliance.''

That was the No. 1 recommendation out of that task force that investigated what happened in the Northeast and what happened in the Midwest.

So the question is, Why are we not passing reliability legislation before we adjourn, to make sure there are mandatory enforceable rules in place? After the task force's 7-month investigation was complete, Congress has been given an opportunity, many times on the floor, to pass reliability standards. Yet we have not done that. I think some of my colleagues are trying to get a larger energy bill passed first. There are many aspects of the comprehensive Energy bill this Senator would support and many I would not. But I guarantee you this, when this electricity reliability standards bill comes to the floor and is voted on, it will have unanimous support.

So the question is, why we are not peeling off something as important as reliability standards as we approach the summer's hottest months, to make sure businesses and utilities know they will have electricity supply and blackouts will not occur. What if the lights go out again this summer? What if they go out in August? God forbid they go out in September as many of my colleagues will be in New York doing their business and having meetings.

We know various Western States now, such as in Arizona, are putting in place programs to reduce demand because they have concerns. In a BusinessWeek article, FERC Chairman

Pat Wood basically described the summer as ``a rosary bead summer'' in California because he has concerns that region is going to have some close calls.

We also know, according to the North American Electric Reliability Council's own Reliability Assessment for 2004, New York City ``might be susceptible to reliability problems'' again this summer.

So folks across the country could be affected by the cascading outages that happen to them or in nearby areas. In the words of Michael Gent, who is the president of the North American Electric Reliability Council:

Whether legislation is adopted on a stand-alone basis or as

part of a comprehensive energy bill, passage is essential. If

reliability legislation had been enacted when first proposed,

I believe that the blackout would not have occurred.

Why is that? Because right now, while consumers may think there are standards by which supply needs to be on the grid and reliability maintained, there are actually no mandatory rules. What happened in the Midwest and in New York was the fact that people did not have the supply available at a time that the demand was really there, or the transmission available to move the power. So consumers were caught in the dark--many senior citizens, individuals in hospitals. A whole variety of things occurred that were very unfortunate circumstances.

Now, we in the Northwest know this situation all too well. It was actually my predecessor, Senator Gorton, who first proposed this legislation and actually passed it out of this body, and then it languished in the House of Representatives. We waited again in 2002 and 2003 to get this legislation moved forward through the process. So I think it is critically important before this body adjourns next week that we pass the reliability standards legislation and implement it.

Unanimous Consent Request--S. 2236

So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 465, S. 2236, a bill to enhance the reliability of the electric system; that the bill be read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, without any intervening action or debate.

Madam President, I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will reconsider their position because we are not, in the next 5 to 6 days of legislative action, going to get a comprehensive energy bill. But we can get an energy reliability standards bill passed and put in place, and send a message sent to electricity providers across the country that there are going to be reliability rules and standards in place.

We cannot continue to hold hostage good energy reliability legislation for a comprehensive bill when consumers are at risk. We cannot continue to deny the reports across the country that more blackouts are coming. We need to act.

Now, Madam President, I would like to take a few minutes to expand on some of the other news and events that relate to this energy policy.

As my colleague mentioned an energy bill, I certainly would like to get an energy bill that did something to prevent market manipulation, or even just a stand-alone bill that would prevent market manipulation. We in the West have been astounded by the lack of response by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the news and information about markets being manipulated.

I do not mean there is speculation about manipulation; I mean there are documents that have now been uncovered through organizations such as Snohomish County PUD; they are actually signed documents by various day traders at the Enron Trading Portland office that showed exactly how the trading schemes worked. While those utilities harmed will continue to pursue their case legally, it is absurd that the Federal energy regulators who are supposed to do their job in protecting consumers are failing to do anything. Basically they are the policemen on the watch and they are letting the crime continue to be committed.

When I say ``continue to be committed,'' I would like to submit for the record an article that was recently published that shows the chances that these schemes might still be continuing in the State of Texas. The Texas Public Utilities Commission has an ongoing investigation, and there are a couple of companies down there that are actually pursuing this case. Some of the same Enron traders who were involved in the Portland office in these schemes have now moved on to other companies. CBS and others now have audiotapes showing that some of these Texas power giants might still be manipulating the market in the same ways that Enron did. So the question is, When are we going to stand up and do something about this?

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article entitled ``Accusation: Trader Recordings Show TXU Schemed to Spike Power Prices.''

The issue is really before us in the sense that we need to continue to push the Federal regulators to do their job, the Federal regulators being the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They have failed to do their job. We had an Enron collapse and scandal in which markets were manipulated, shareholders were conned, books were cooked, and various aspects of this investigation and prosecution are taking place. My hat is tipped to DOJ in their effectiveness in pursuing this case against various Enron employees, including their recent indictment of Ken Lay, even though that is a process in which Mr. Lay has his opportunity and will have his day in court. But I take great offense to Mr. Lay's PR campaign in which he goes on television saying that all that happened in California was California's fault, that it was wrong for them because they deregulated without proper supply.

Well, I think it is very clear there has been market manipulation as shown by the documents that are being provided, and it is a question of whether the Federal regulators are going to do their job.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Washington Post from this week in which the paper criticized the Federal energy regulators for not doing their job. I think that is what we need, more attention to show that those Federal regulators have not had the bright light of day shown on them and that they are failing to do their job.

The article basically says:

. . . FERC's overly cautious approach to the Enron aftermath

. . . has damaged the regulatory commission's standing and

even its ability to oversee market regulation in the future.

In California, Nevada, Washington state and elsewhere, the

acronym FERC has become a byword for impotence. Its job was

to protect consumers, the argument goes; it didn't protect

consumers. . . .

So I think we need to continue to push. In fact, the editorial goes on to say:

. . . Congress should quickly act to give FERC the powers it

needs. . . .

We must do our job in continuing to protect consumers from this market manipulation. When we have evidence now that shows it has taken place, and we cannot get the cop on the beat to investigate, and we now have documentation and suspicion that it may still be going on in other parts of the country, Congress needs to do its job.

Just as we did with the SEC in passing new accounting rules, we need to make sure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does its job on regulating wholesale power rates, making sure that they are just and reasonable and that the manipulation stops.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise this morning to talk about where we are going with our Nation's energy policy and what this body and the House of Representatives are going to do in protecting consumers and ratepayers from continued market manipulation and energy fraud.

This morning, most of America woke up to a picture of one of America's corporate leaders led off to an indictment in handcuffs. Yes, that is right, Ken Lay from the Enron Corporation, while not found guilty today, was indicted on 11 different counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud, and making false and misleading statements. The question is whether this 65-page indictment of Ken Lay, which does prove that no one is above the law, is going to bring justice to ratepayers and consumers in America who have suffered from market manipulation at the hands of Enron.

I say that because there are still about 10 States in America that have utilities that are being sued by Enron. That is right, even though Enron has manipulated contracts, even though there are documents from Federal investigators showing that market manipulation has happened, Enron still has the audacity to sue utilities across

the country forcing them to pay on fraudulent contracts. For the State of Washington there has not been an insignificant consequence for our economy. The fact that people in Snohomish County had a more than 50- percent rate increase and have had that rate increase in place for some time, shows the great impact it has had on our ability to keep jobs, keep people in their homes with proper heating. Even the school districts have had challenges. Snohomish, Mukilteo, and Everett School Districts have estimated that they will pay $2-plus million in energy costs if their utility is forced to pay Enron. That money could go for hiring teachers, putting classroom materials together, and helping to promote programs under the No Child Left Behind Act, but at the same time they are getting hit with exorbitant energy costs.

So my constituents want to know whether this 65-page indictment is going to lead to justice for Americans who have been impacted by this matter.

Washington is not the only State. Nevada, the State of the Presiding Officer who understands this issue well, has been impacted. There are States in the Midwest. There are many utilities that cannot believe that with all this information that has come about they are being asked to pay on these fraudulent contracts.

I think the question that Federal regulators ought to be asking themselves, and those who are responsible for the indictment of Ken Lay--I want to applaud the Department of Justice for doing the great work they have done in actually bringing about this indictment today. But the question becomes, How did Mr. Lay influence the rest of the regulatory process? If you are the Department of Justice you are bringing about justice to individuals believed to have manipulated the market, financial documents, or made false or misleading statements. Then is the Department of Justice not doing its job? The Securities Exchange Commission, an independent organization that has basically helped in producing this indictment, showing that there has been accounting fraud, aren't they doing their job? The question remains, Why aren't energy regulatory officials doing their job. They are the ones who are supposed to make sure there are just and reasonable rates and that there isn't market manipulation. And, basically, they have said you are right, there weren't just and reasonable rates as it relates to manipulated contracts, but we are keeping those contracts in place.

I raise the question this morning, with Ken Lay's indictment, whether in fact Mr. Lay did not have undue influence on the process of actually helping to get FERC Commissioners on board, and influencing policy by saying to them, stay the course with the California crisis and in the impact it is having on western markets. Today, I say we definitely need relief from these Enron contracts.

Still, Mr. Lay sent a letter to the executive branch basically saying: I am attaching a list of potential candidates we think would do an excellent job on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Basically, he went on in that document to then give a list of issues that he thought were very important to consider for the Commission appointees that he thought would help influence the process. Specifically, he talked about how basically the free market should continue to be allowed, that they should not push in the energy crisis for a variety of resolutions.

In fact, he actually said one of the criteria should be: Willingness to abolish current native load preference under current tariffs. For us in the Northwest, right there he was lobbying the administration to say, only appoint Commissioners to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission who are going to let us have our way, putting whatever Enron power on the grid that can go on the grid. If we are willing to pay to put Enron energy onto the grid and pay more money than the Bonneville Power Administration is willing to pay, nominate FERC Commissioners that are going to let us do that.

He goes on to say that he wants to select people who are going to ensure that there are free markets and open access, which is a concern. While he mentions orderly rules of the road, one of the issues has been whether there have been any orderly rules of the road. I think that is part of the concern that we have with his indictment: how much did he influence the regulatory process?

A second thing came to light within the context of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The committee performed an investigation of how much Enron did influence the Commission. In fact, after reviewing memos that had been sent by Ken Lay to the Federal Government, to various individuals, including his support for the nomination of two of the Commissioners, basically the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee said that ``documents obtained indicate that Enron attempted to directly and indirectly influence the FERC investigation of the California markets and subsequent decisionmaking.''

So here we have Federal regulators that have been basically nominated and pushed by Ken Lay, and not in the normal, let's nominate somebody to head up an independent commission with such an important role for our economy and Government, way. He sent a letter basically with a litmus test:

Support these people to be Commissioners of the FERC if in

fact they support this philosophy of continuing to let the

market go without the proper rules and regulations, and

basically let standard market design, something that this

body has had a lot of concern about, let that be the policy

of the day.

Well, one of our committees, the Government Affairs Committee, basically found that Enron attempted to have direct and indirect influence upon FERC's investigation of the market; that they were trying to lobby FERC, if you will, to do nothing about the California crisis. I find that a very interesting connection in this particular issue, again, because my ratepayers are continuing to pay exorbitant amounts for energy, being sued by Enron. They are on the hook for millions more. Madam President, $122 million just from the utility in my home county is what they want to get out of our ratepayers, when they have admitted market manipulation. I find this interesting. The day that Ken Lay actually sent the letter to the executive branch was January 8, 2001. In it, he is basically saying: I want to get Commissioners who think like Enron does. I want to get those people making these important policy decisions. Here are the policy decisions I think they should make. Make sure these markets continue to operate in the way that Enron likes.

I find it amazing because instead of Ken Lay doing his job on a daily basis as a CEO, with oversight over an organization, he was lobbying for FERC commissioners. Meanwhile, less than 2 days after Ken Lay writes this letter we have audiotapes from Enron traders talking about the ricochet scheme, which was selling power outside of California and then selling it back in, doing that because it could get a higher price.

So he writes this letter on January 8, and we have audiotapes on January 18 of Enron discussing how they were manipulating the market using the ricochet scheme. On January 23, about 2 weeks after he writes this, there are tapes of Enron traders on the phone discussing how they are going to take a contract with a utility in my State, in Snohomish County, and jack up the price, lying to make them think there was a higher demand for the power, and that way the county would pay more money.

Just after that, 2\1/2\ weeks after he sends this letter, there is another audiotape where Enron traders are discussing how much money they are going to make off of the Snohomish County deal and how they are going to account for it in two different ways, one at $10 million and the other at $20 million, just because that is the way they keep the books.

Here is a CEO who is spending his time lobbying Federal regulators on how they should not take a hard stance in California, how they should do nothing about the crisis, how they should continue to let the free market work its will, and at the same time his own employees are on the phone talking about how to manipulate price and gouge consumers.

In fact, 2 days after this letter--sent on January 8--on January 10, traders discuss whether they should lie to the Wall Street Journal about their activities.

Here are the people who work for this company. He could have been doing oversight of the people within his company and the market manipulation, particularly since these individuals, executives of his company, had come before Congress basically telling everybody that they were doing their job and that market manipulation was not occurring.

I have a great deal of concern about whether this indictment of Ken Lay is going to bring justice for the American people and the ratepayers. Again, I applaud DOJ for getting the indictment, but the question is whether people who are still being impacted by this crisis are going to get relief.

What does Chairman Pat Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission say about Enron? At the time this happened, Pat Wood continued to be, I guess, a market-oriented person even though the deregulation experiment in California had proven to be ill-fated, it was proven people would take advantage and manipulate the market. The publication, Inside FERC, wrote that Pat Wood believed that ``the marketmaking style created by Enron should be emulated by other companies and supported by regulators.''

This is after Enron's bankruptcy. Enron had gone bankrupt and we had the chairman, supported by Ken Lay--we had the Federal regulator, who is the policeman on the beat supposedly protecting people--saying Enron should be emulated.

I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 minutes.

I thank the Chair. What else did Chairman Pat Wood say about Enron and the market manipulation? I get that he thinks a market needs to be open, but a market without transparency and a market without aggressive regulators to make sure they monitor for manipulation is not a true market.

Pat Wood, again according to Inside FERC, shortly after Enron went bankrupt, said, While Enron may be a ``goner,'' . . . ``the innovation and entrepreneurial [spirit] that characterized this company remain . . . ''

I will hope Mr. Wood's observations have changed by today with the 65-page, 11-count indictment of Mr. Lay. There are lots of things going on here, and the entrepreneurial spirit that he thought existed in 2001 has definitely been characterized in a different light today. It has been shown that market manipulation has happened and was perpetrated by Enron.

I think where we are is taking a closer look at a deeper philosophy of what Chairman Wood really believes. It is a philosophy, again, where Chairman Wood of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was quoted as saying:

. . . the new breed of energy company, in fact, is going to

be the only game in town 5 years from now.

That is his philosophy. This leads to the kind of hands-off approach for which Ken Lay lobbied. And again, an approach that the Governmental Affairs Committee said Enron attempted to put in place through direct and indirect influence on the Federal energy regulators. This is basically the policy I think got us into so much trouble in California, without regulators responding in due time. It is the same philosophy that has gotten utilities in about 10 States in financial risk because Enron continues to sue them. Pat Wood is clear in his philosophy. He thinks that the Enron model is the only game in town and it is the way we should proceed.

I can tell you, I don't think it is the only game in town. I don't think we are doing enough on this matter. This body needs to take a firm stand that market manipulation is wrong. It can't be just and reasonable. It can't be in the public interest. And it is not what we ratepayers across the country should be forced to pay on.

Again, Pat Wood, Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, has said, ``We're doing the maximum we can do.''

We are doing the maximum we can do. He said that in January of this year. In January of this year, while the utility in my State, in Snohomish County, was being the policeman on the beat, transcribing audiotapes, looking through documents, doing all the homework the Federal energy regulators should be doing. While Pat Wood was making the same statement saying we are doing all we can do, my constituents in Washington State were proving there was a heck of a lot more to do to give ratepayers justice.

Again, I applaud what the Department of Justice has done in the indictment of Ken Lay. They are going to try to get to the bottom of this story. But what my colleagues need to realize, and understand, is we have an imbalance. We cannot have the Department of Justice doing a great job with its Enron task force and prosecution of various Enron executives on accounting and securities fraud. We can't have the SEC doing a great job on making sure there are new securities regulations in place to make sure these violations don't happen again, and then have the Federal energy regulators who are in charge of protecting ratepayers fall down on the job. That is exactly what has happened. They have fallen down on the job, they are not protecting ratepayers. We are going to see that after this indictment we are going to continue to pursue this case in the Senate, if we have to, and in the House of Representatives, to make sure that all Federal agencies do their job, and they are giving justice to ratepayers who have been impacted by fraudulent contracts.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to commemorate the 60th anniversary of one of the most important bills to ever be passed by this body, the GI bill. Just like the recent remembrance of D-Day and the unveiling of the World War II memorial, the passage of this landmark legislation is another part of the World War II legacy.

Sixty years ago today, President Roosevelt signed into law the ``Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944.'' That bill created unprecedented access to education and training for tens of thousands of military members returning home after World War II.

Even before the War ended, Congress and the Administration were preparing for the return of over 15 million men and women serving in the armed services. Without intervention, those 15 million would have no jobs or opportunities when they returned home. To

prevent postwar depression caused by mass unemployment, an agency within the Administration, called the National Resource Planning Board, recommended a set of programs to provide education, training and employment for returning soldiers. One of these recommendations became the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, which was supported by the American Legion and other veteran organizations, and was unanimously passed both chambers of Congress. President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on June 22, 1944.

This bill became know as GI bill, and it provided a range of benefits to help veterans reintegrate into the workforce and American society. It provided education and training; loan guaranty for a home, farm, or business; unemployment pay for up to a year; job-search assistance; building materials for veterans hospitals; and military review of dishonorable discharges.

Veterans were entitled to one year of full-time education or training, plus a period equal to their time in service, up to four years. This program had a tremendous impact on college enrollment in this country. In fact, in 1947, which was the peak year of the program, veterans accounted for 49 percent of college enrollment.

Out of a veteran population of 15.4 million, just over half--7.8 million--were trained, including 2.23 million in college, 3.48 million in other schools, 1.4 million in on-job training, and 690,000 in farm training.

Millions of veterans, who would have flooded the labor market, instead opted for education, which reduced joblessness during the demobilization period. When they did enter the labor market, most were better prepared to contribute to the support of their families and society.

The GI bill created an initiative called the Local Veterans Employment Representative Program, or LVER. This program hired wartime veterans to work in employment centers across the U.S. to help other veterans secure counseling and employment. For 60 years, the LVER Program has helped veterans find jobs, training, and education. It has become an integral part of employment services and has been instrumental in helping veterans to resume normal lives after returning.

Today, LVER staff in my home State include some of the best-trained worker placement and retraining experts in the country. For Washington, which has one of the largest concentrations of servicemen and women, veterans, and their families, this is very important. Within my state, Pierce County has a particularly high active military and veteran population, and the LVER program there is a terrific example of what is possible.

The Pierce County LVER program ensures that over 25,000 veterans receive the vital re-employment support they deserve. With staff assistance, they write resumes that reflect the breadth of their experience and skills, draft cover letters, and research employment opportunities. Veterans are also provided with leads on specific jobs and employers who seek the unique skills and talents of experienced veterans.

Staff of the Pierce County LVER also set up three major job fairs each year, which attract over more than 6,000 veterans and employers each year. The LVER office coordinates its activities with over 500 local, State, and national employers, giving veterans access to a unique national support network. The LVER staff includes men and women like Sam Mack, Sal Cantu, Tanya Brewster, and Vicki Bishop, all of whom are decorated veterans who are proud to support their fellow servicemen and women.

Sal Cantu, a resident of Pierce County, epitomizes the dedication and commitment of his colleagues. Sal coordinated a national effort to not only celebrate the GI bill, but specifically to recognize the LVER program and its tremendous impact on service members who seek meaningful employment once they return home. More than 25 State governors wrote letters lauding the efforts of the Pierce County LVER staff to recognize the significant impact of their program.

Most importantly, Sal, a 40 percent-disabled Vietnam era veteran, knows how to build trusting and lasting relationships with veterans. For him, helping veterans chart the next stage of their careers is a labor of love. I am extremely proud of the many men and women like Sal who, after serving honorably in the military, have made it their second career to support and help locate jobs for their fellow veterans.

Yet before the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, the United States did not provide employment or vocational services for veterans upon their completion of military service. Since the first GI bill, there have been five subsequent programs enacted to provide benefits to veterans of other military conflicts--from the Korean conflict to the war in Iraq. The most recent bill, the Montgomery GI bill enacted in 1985, is the largest contemporary program providing education benefits to military personnel. All enlisted soldiers and veterans are eligible for between $7,500 and $35,000 in educational aid. This program has attracted men and women into the armed forces by helping to pay for college. Today, over 90 percent of those who enter the military enroll in the Montgomery GI bill program.

As we reflect on the history and success of the GI bill, we should consider how this program can translate to all Americans. The spirit of the GI bill that in exchange for contributing to society, this country should help individuals invest in themselves also holds true for those who have not served in the military. As the cost of education rises, many low- and middle-income students--whether they have served in the military or not need help covering educational expenses. We need to make the same kind of investment in the human capital, not just of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, but for all Americans. We need a GI bill for all Americans.

In the ever-changing global economy, the success of our companies depends on adaptability and innovation. As a result, we must change the way we educate and prepare workers to compete in the global economy. When national leaders were confronted with fundamental changes in the size and nature of the country's workforce following World War II, they stepped up to address the challenge with the GI bill. The economic sea changes we face today demand a similar response.

To maintain our economic competitiveness, we must keep up with the demand for skilled workers across all sectors of the economy. The changing economy has increased the demand for a college degree. In February, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that 6 of the 10 fastest-growing occupations in the U.S. economy require an associate's degree or bachelor's degree, and that all ten of these careers will require some type of skills training. By 2010, 40 percent of all job growth will require some form of post-secondary education.

To keep pace in the new, knowledge- and information-based economy, it's imperative that we equip our workforce with the skills to succeed in high-wage jobs. If we fail, those who lack skills will fall further and further behind, imperiling not just their individual futures, but America's ability to compete in the global economy.

It is the responsibility of this body to return to the level of investment in higher education that this country made 60 years ago. We do need a new GI bill for all Americans, and I, for one, intend to fight to make the idea of universal post-secondary education come to fruition.

Mr. President, this afternoon it is my privilege to introduce you to the incredibly talented nominee for a vacancy on the District Court for the Western District of Washington, James Robart.

In one sense, today's confirmation vote is a homecoming for Mr. Robart. Early in his career, he served as an aide to Senator Scoop Jackson. I am sure that he would be proud of his accomplishments during a long and productive legal career, and would whole-heartedly endorse his confirmation.

Following his public service as a staff member in both Houses, Mr. Robart returned to Washington State, where he has worked as an attorney for the past three decades. During his considerable years of practice in Federal court, he has earned a reputation for fairness and integrity.

Mr. Robart's nomination is the result of a bipartisan selection process that has worked very well for Washington State. Members of Washington State's legal community, the White House, and my colleague Senator Patty Murray and I worked together to review a group of applicants. This cooperative approach has produced a number of highly qualified judicial nominees, and

I believe it is a sound model for other States.

I am confident that James Robart will make an outstanding Federal judge, and that the people of the Western District of Washington will be well-served by his presence on the bench.

I am pleased to offer Mr. Robart my full support, and I urge my colleagues to approve his nomination.

Mr. President, I stand today to offer a bill to protect educational radio stations.

Broadcaster Linda Ellerbee has compared radio to a national campfire: a place where a variety of voices bring us stories, news, opinion, culture and entertainment. But it seems these days that those representing the biggest business interests have the best seats at that campfire.

Current regulations allow commercial broadcasters to move into the spaces of some, lower-powered educational stations.

Last year the FCC ordered an educational station at a high school in Pennsylvania to be closed because a commercial broadcaster wanted to move into that space. That high school station had been serving the students and the community in Havertown, PA for fifty years. But no more. The high school station's voice was silenced. And that same FCC order also closed a radio station operated by a school district in Princeton, NJ. Both stations lost their licenses so a commercial broadcaster could get a frequency closer to the very profitable radio market in Philadelphia.

In my State of Washington, a high school station that has served a Seattle community for 35 years is now threatened with closure. That's because a commercial broadcaster located in another State wants to relocate to a larger city to increase its profits at the expense of the students of Mercer Island High School and the community the station serves. And in this case, the school's station also serves an important tool in the lives of those working in the local music community. The station focuses on introducing new and local bands to the airways. These artists are frequently later picked up for airplay by other radio stations. Few stations across the U.S. perform this role in the music industry. No other station serves this role so well in the Seattle music community.

If the FCC allows this move, it could be worth millions to the commercial broadcasters. But what is the cost to the local community when this voice is silenced? What is the educational cost to the students at this high school? What benefits and experiences will they be losing in the future?

This is a classic example of commercial interests trumping the public service interest in preserving local educational broadcasters. These small public service stations usually don't have

anyone to stand up for them. Since the 1970's, we have seen more than a hundred of these stations disappear, to be replaced by larger, often national broadcasters, with little if any connection to the local community.

The examples I've given you here today are not the only ones. Radio stations run by universities in Pittsburgh and North Carolina are also vulnerable to similar attempts.

This is why I am introducing the Educational Radio Protection Act.

My legislation is very simple: educational stations that are able to meet certain qualifying standards, similar to the requirements for primary, Class A, stations on FM radio, will be given the same protected status that these primary stations receive.

This is an important measure to protect community broadcasters. And the bottom line is that commercial broadcasters won't be able to bump these educational stations off the radio dial.

I thank you for the time today to discuss an issue that really is a cornerstone of democracy. For only in a democracy are the voices of the many heard to bring about a functioning government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and yield the floor.