Floor Statements

Mr. President, 2 years ago, our Nation was brutally attacked by terrorists. Thousands of innocent men, women, and children lost their lives on September 11, 2001, in New York, the Washington, DC, area, and Pennsylvania. This week, we honor the memories of those lost, and remember the mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, and other loved ones who will never return to their families.

Yet in the midst of that tragedy, we were reminded about what makes America strong. Firefighters raced into the doomed towers of the World Trade Center, saving thousands of lives, although they would be unable to reach safety themselves. At the Pentagon, even as part of their building burned, the men and women of the military command stayed at their desks to help coordinate information and keep the country's armed forces on high alert. Over Pennsylvania, a group of strangers joined together to fight back against their attackers and saved countless lives by giving their own.

Our strength has always come from the capacity of average Americans to rise to acts of heroism to protect neighbor and stranger alike. Now, our security derives from regular people in a wide range of jobs, in addition to the brave men and women of the armed forces. From Customs agents, to cops on the beat, to baggage screeners, million of U.S. citizens have important roles to play in keeping our country safe.

Today, the fight against terror continues. We face an elusive enemy, willing and eager to take any measure and to murder innocent civilians. To them, the freedoms we enjoy represent opportunities to attack our society and way of life.

This week we remember why we have been drawn into this fight--so that no more families must mourn the loss of loved ones to terror attacks. As we continue this struggle, it is imperative that we do so in a manner befitting a nation of laws. By doing so, we will send a powerful message to the rest of the world: America will not yield to terrorists, and the principles of freedom and democracy will not be bowed by their cowardly tactics. Together, we will prevail.

Mr. President, I rise to enter into a colloquy with the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education. I came to the floor today to offer an amendment to increase dislocated worker formula funds in order to create new job training opportunities for dislocated workers.

Given the continued job losses nationwide, increasing funds to retrain workers is critical--both for workers and for the businesses that are hiring workers. Our national unemployment rate is now 6.1 percent, which is close to the highest it has been in 9 years. Since the recession started in January 2001, we have lost more than three million private sector jobs, and these job losses continue. In my State, Boeing announced over 600 layoffs in July. In August, it announced over 500 more. And it has plans to cut a total of 5,000 jobs nationally by the end of the year. These funds are clearly needed to get Americans back to work.

I am pleased that my colleagues and I have reached an agreement to include an additional $25 million in this bill for the Dislocated Worker formula funds. Clearly, I would have liked to secure additional funding, but recognize that the bill includes many worthy priorities and that funds are extremely tight. I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member to secure this funding increase in the final version of the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two State Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation.

Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79-percent increase in identity theft in

the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair.

The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resource Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records.

But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year.

To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage.

Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personally identifying information does not match the information on file with the business.

This bill fixes that problem. The Identify Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need.

The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses State lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case.

My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or State law enforcement or Federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with State and local law enforcement agencies.

Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft.

Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft.

My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred.

The bill leaves in place State laws that are more stringent and provides that either Federal prosecutors or State Attorney Generals may enforce this law.

Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft.

The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes.

We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study

and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft.

There is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two State Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation.

Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79-percent increase in identity theft in

the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair.

The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resource Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records.

But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year.

To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage.

Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personally identifying information does not match the information on file with the business.

This bill fixes that problem. The Identify Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need.

The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses State lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case.

My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or State law enforcement or Federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with State and local law enforcement agencies.

Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft.

Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft.

My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred.

The bill leaves in place State laws that are more stringent and provides that either Federal prosecutors or State Attorney Generals may enforce this law.

Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft.

The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes.

We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study

and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft.

There is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

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

Mr. President, I know my colleagues have now for the last hour discussed the fact that we need to move on an energy plan and yet allow Members to have some discussion of policy. While I think we now have a proposal to discuss, it is important to point out we were very willing to talk about an electricity title. We were very willing last night, while the Senate wanted to debate judges--and I sat here as my Republican colleagues spoke for hours--I was willing to offer an amendment on electricity.

People are talking about moving ahead on an Energy bill because it is good for our economy, because it will help with supply. While we were sitting here wasting our time yesterday talking about judges, another company in my State with 700 workers from Bellingham, WA, temporarily shut down their facility. Why? Because of the high cost of electricity in our State.

So this is not about a problem that might happen. It is a problem that has already happened.

The parliamentary, procedural ruse that has been played on us to not go to the electricity title has been incredible. I was standing here, waiting to offer amendments, only to find out that we were going to go to a judge.

Yes, the Senator from New Mexico was right; we wanted to go to the electricity title. But we didn't even have the language from his proposal when we left town last week on Friday night. It wasn't even available Friday until late Friday night. So, yes, as soon as we got that language we started poring through it.

Now the question is whether this body wants to debate an electricity title, whether they want to consider the issues at hand.

Last night, the amendment I wanted to offer was actually shared with the minority staff. The majority staff is now saying we don't know what amendments are going to be offered. We had seven amendments to file this morning, only to find out they are no longer in order because of the motion to commit in the document that is now available only in two copies of 800 pages, making it impossible for us to offer our second- degree amendments.

What happened when we shared what we wanted to offer in an amendment? We ended up getting an e-mail threat back from the majority side saying, if you offer your amendment, we are going to do X to you. So much for sharing ideas about amendments. It is no secret this Senator from the State of Washington, who believes this underlying electricity title could potentially move higher cost electricity onto the transmission lines in my State and ultimately force my consumers to pay a higher rate, doesn't like the electricity title and wants to see it changed. This Senator from Washington State does not believe that my State should be forced into that kind of regional transmission organization planning or standard market design planning in which my region might get charged higher electricity rates while the State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal.

Yes, that is right. The State of Texas gets a sweetheart deal because they are exempted from that section on regional transmission organizations and standard market design. If this electricity title is so good for all of America, why

isn't it good for Texas? That is because Texas does not want to share in this plan. They don't want to share their power, and they don't want to necessarily have their transmission lines with higher cost energy on them. I don't want it in my region. But I know this: If it is good for me, it ought to be good for them.

The bottom line is the other side of the aisle doesn't want to take the time to hear about electricity amendments and debate them. With the west coast economy getting a $6 billion black eye, that is $6 billion that the ratepayers have had to pay because of increased energy prices, when the market has been knowingly manipulated. That was admitted to by Enron, admitted to by the Department of Justice citing Enron's manipulation, it has been admitted by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that such manipulation has happened. We ought to have our day here on the Senate floor.

The distinguished majority leader said let's not talk about the politics of this. But I have to say I don't want to stand here and be part of what he is labeling as obstruction when this is the body to which my constituents look to have their issues debated. This is the place where we come to represent constituents. This is their opportunity to be heard. I am their representative. I have the right to offer amendments dealing with one of the biggest pyramid schemes, financial crises to affect the Northwest. I deserve to be heard. My constituents deserve to be heard.

My constituents did not get invited to a meeting at the White House with Vice President Dick Cheney to talk about the energy plan. They were not invited.

My constituents didn't get a password code to get on the conference call with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when they discussed with Wall Street financiers of Enron what legal standard they were going to use in reviewing the contracts of Enron, and whether ratepayers were going to get relief. My constituents didn't get that password code. We didn't get to be on that call.

My constituents don't have high-paid lobbyists like the Weststar Company, which is under Federal investigation for their donations to various political groups that were all keyed around trying to influence the energy policy of this body.

We may not win on our amendments about market manipulation and improving the way energy policy is regulated, but, by God, we deserve to be heard on this Senate floor and have a debate about electricity. You cannot have an amendment like that of Senator Dayton that basically is trying to stop the repeal of the consumer protection law that is currently on the books, that the Domenici underlying title erases, and not have a debate on that. How can you not have a debate on the Dayton amendment that stops the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act?

As the Washington Post said yesterday in a headline on the front page of the business section: ``Energy Monoliths Could Return.'' There was more debate yesterday in the Washington Post about the Dayton amendment trying to stop the return of this monolith than there has been on the floor of the Senate.

I think the public should get their due. They paid $6 billion. Gee, for $6 billion in increased power rates you ought to at least give them a couple of days on the Senate floor to talk about these issues. These issues are a significant change to current law. The whole notion of regional transmission organizations and standard market design is a move toward deregulation that this body ought to understand and understand well.

Since the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided even though the markets had been manipulated they were not going to give relief to west coast ratepayers, we have not even had a hearing. We have not even had a hearing. That was just a few weeks ago.

For 2\1/2\ years my colleague and staff member, Angela Becker- Dippman, and myself have probably paid more attention to the energy issue than just about anybody in this body, save maybe the California Members. Why? Because a crisis happened in our State starting in late 2000, and we lobbied for price caps. We asked, before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission: Give our State relief. It took them a year plus, a year and a half before they finally came in with any relief.

Then people said it was all about supply and don't worry, it is all going to get straightened out. It is not about manipulation. Nobody manipulated anything.

Then we find out they actually manipulated something and admitted it. They said: Don't worry, you'll have your day. It will all go before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. They will take care of it. Something will happen.

They have done nothing to protect the consumers once that manipulation was known. They have done nothing. They have done nothing but get on a phone call with the financiers of the Enron deal and say to them, in private password conversations: Don't worry, you'll be protected.

So, yes, my amendments deserve debate. We are not going to be an apologist for Enron, nor condone their actions. But we should have a healthy policy debate about:

No. 1, whether this country needs more deregulation of the energy industry. Why not have that debate? Some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle actually believe there should be deregulation. I don't agree with them. What is wrong with having that debate?

No. 2, we ought to debate whether we have enough consumer protection in this legislation to protect from future market manipulation that might happen as we continue to see the rise in natural gas prices. We should have that debate.

No. 3, we could have a debate about whether we really understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design actually do.

I can't tell you how many people in California thought it was no big deal about how most of the legislators didn't really understand what was going on in the legislation and went ahead and passed it only to then find out that basically they had turned electricity over to the free market. Electricity isn't just a commodity; it is a necessity. People need it. They cannot be gouged by high prices. That is exactly what has happened.

We ought to debate whether we understand what regional transmission organizations and standard market design really do.

I am all for joining with my colleagues if they want to make this a voluntary experiment. If they want to make this section of the electricity title voluntary, I am happy to make it voluntary. But it is not voluntary now. It is a mandate. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission came up with hearings, with pricing schemes, and with a rule that would ultimately go into place after 2005. So wait 2 years to get your plans in place and then implement them.

As the Senator from North Dakota adequately explained, this isn't about whether we are going to build a national grid system and whether cheap electricity in his region is going to get displaced by more costly electricity from somewhere else and forced on his consumers. Why should he agree to that? We need to have a debate about whether we really know and understand where this title is leading us. I am happy to do that. I am happy to do it. More importantly, I am happy to do it on Saturday.

My constituents deserve to be heard on this issue. When they are stuck with a 56-percent rate increase for the next 5 years because they signed an Enron contract and they get no relief from the Federal Government, they deserve to be heard. When Enron can turn around and sue them to continually force my ratepayers to pay a higher rate on manipulated contracts, they deserve to be heard.

I am not being an obstructionist. The majority leader talked about doing something in the public interest. This is about the public interest. This is about saying this body is going to protect consumers from market manipulation. We are not going to guess at it. We are not going to pretend that we know.

We are not going to pass something the Attorney General from New York sends us a letter about basically saying, Excuse me. Thanks for your hard work, but you are not getting it done. Your language not only doesn't protect us enough but it might actually undermine the current State laws that are in

place. Or a letter from the National Securities Exchange executive saying the same thing. The National Securities Exchange doesn't say they think the language in the underlying bill curtails their efforts on getting the kind of oversight that needs to happen to protect consumers from market manipulation.

I couldn't disagree more with the majority leader. I supported the Energy bill last year. I wanted to get it out here. I didn't like everything in it. I was willing to compromise to move something ahead. But a financial disaster happened in my State and it is going to continue for years to come. This electricity title on which the majority party has filed a motion to commit prohibits us from offering those amendments. Maybe our leadership is in the back room working out some sort of agreement. Maybe they are back there saying let us start backward on the electricity title. Maybe they are bifurcating some of these issues about supply.

But why not say to the American public we are going to make clear to you there is no doubt that this isn't a supply issue, and we have made sure manipulation has been taken care of?

We cannot leave here giving the American people the impression that if you have enough money you can rely on the energy policy. Electricity is a necessity, and we need to fight to make it affordable. This Member will stand here for as long as it takes to make sure my constituents have their day on these amendments.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Reserving the right to object, I know the leadership on both sides of the aisle would like to proceed on last year's Senate Energy bill. This Senator believes we have just begun to have debate on two important issues that have emerged since that legislation was passed by this body.

The first issue is we now know for a fact, proven by the Federal Regulatory Commission, by the Department of Justice, and by Enron's own memos, that market manipulation has occurred. The 2002 Energy bill does not address that issue.

This body will need to come back and address that issue. I am happy to address it in another forum, but I am hearing a commitment from leadership on both sides that we will come back and address this issue.

The second issue: The Federal Regulatory Commission, since the passage of the 2002 act, issued a rule calling for the implementation of mandatory regional transmission organizations and standard market design. For my colleagues who do not understand what that means, it means a national grid where your region's cheap, affordable electricity at cost-based rates might be displaced by the highest bidder of an energy company that wants to sell its more expensive energy in your State.

The 2002 bill does not address that. We need to address the fact that we do not want FERC to proceed on an order mandating regional transmission organizations with standard market design. That is what some of my amendments dealt with; that is what some of the underlying bill dealt with. That is not in the 2002 version.

I will not object at this time based on agreement that I have heard from my leadership and the majority leadership that we will have an opportunity to address both of those issues in the future.

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two state Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation.

Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79 percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair.

The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resources Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records.

But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year.

To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage.

Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personal identifying information does not match the information on file with the business.

This bill fixes that problem. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need.

The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses state lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case.

My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or state law enforcement or federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with state and local law enforcement agencies.

Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft.

Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft.

My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred.

The bill leaves in place state laws that are more stringent and provides that either federal prosecutors or State Attorneys General may enforce this law.

Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft.

The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes.

We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft.

Mr. President, there is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to re-introduce legislation critical to helping victims of identity theft. This legislation, the Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act, passed the Senate by unanimous consent in the 107th Congress, and I look forward to its passage again this Congress. Last year, the legislation had strong bipartisan support, as evidenced by the fact that Senator Mike Enzi is cosponsoring it again. The bill has broad support from law enforcement, consumers' groups, and privacy advocates. Last year, the National Center for the Victims of Crime, the Fraternal Order of Police, Consumers Union, Identity Theft Resource Center, U.S. Public Interest Group, Police Executive Forum, Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, and Amazon.com supported the bill. Twenty-two state Attorneys General signed a letter supporting the legislation.

Identity theft is the fastest-growing crime in the country. The Federal Trade Commission found that complaints of identity theft increased 87 percent between 2001 and 2002, and over 161,000 complaints were received by the agency last year. A July 2003 study by Gartner Inc. found that there was a 79 percent increase in identity theft in the past year alone. Identity theft now accounts for 43 percent of consumer fraud complaints and leads the list of consumer frauds. It is an insidious crime because it often occurs without the victim's knowledge, yet leaves scars on their credit records and reputations that can last for years, and cost thousands of dollars to repair.

The Secret Service has estimated that consumers lose $745 million to the problem each year, and this number is clearly growing as the number of identity thefts increases. When a victim realizes that his or her identity was stolen it's just the beginning of their troubles. The FTC estimates that it costs the average victim $1,000 in long-distance phone calls, notary charges, mailing costs and lost wages to get his or her financial life back in order after an identity thief strikes. The Identity Theft Resources Center estimates that average identity theft victims spend 175 hours to clear their records.

But the costs are not confined to consumers--identity theft hits businesses and the economy, too. Identity theft-related losses suffered by MasterCard and Visa jumped from $79.9 million in 1996 to $144.3 million in 2000. One study estimates that by 2006 identity theft will cost the financial institution sector alone $8 billion per year.

To take just one of many examples from my state, Jenni D'Avis of Mill Creek, Washington, had her Social Security number stolen when a thief took her mail and found the number listed on a letter from her community college. The criminal used the number to obtain a state identification card, and in turn used that to get credit. In just 23 days, the thief ran up $100,000 in bad debt--all in Jenni's name. Once she became aware of the problem, she had to become a ``Nancy Drew,'' and track down information. Businesses were reluctant to give her the information she needed to determine the extent of the problem and clear her name and credit record. She is still repairing the damage.

Sadly, Jenni's story is not unique. Victims of identity theft have difficulty restoring their credit and regaining control of their identity, in part, because they have no simple means to show creditors and credit reporting agencies that they are who they say they are. In order to prove fraud, a victim often needs copies of creditors records, such as applications and information, and records from the companies the identity thief did business with. Ironically, victims have difficulty obtaining these business records because the victim's personal identifying information does not match the information on file with the business.

This bill fixes that problem. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act creates a standardized national process for a person to establish he or she is a victim of identity theft for purposes of tracing fraudulent credit transactions and obtaining the evidence to repair them. It requires the Federal Trade Commission to make available a simple certificate that, when notarized, provides certainty to businesses and financial institutions that the person is who they claim to be, is a victim of identity theft, and has filed claims with both local law enforcement and the FTC. With this document in hand, the victim can then obtain from businesses the records they need.

The need for a national system is readily apparent, as identity theft is increasingly a crime that crosses state lines. One of the greatest challenges identity theft presents to law enforcement is that a stolen identity is used to create false identities in many different localities in different states. Although identity theft is a federal crime, most often, state and local law enforcement agencies are responsible for investigating and prosecuting the crimes. Yet law enforcement has yet to fully recognize the serious nature of the problem or to develop a coordinated investigative strategy. For example, in the case of Michael Calip of Centralia, Washington, identity thieves not only ran up $60,000 in debts, they also committed crimes using his name--trashing his credit record and creating a criminal record. Michael tracked the thieves to Wyoming, but had difficulty convincing local authorities there to pursue his case.

My bill for the first time also permits a victim to designate the investigating agency, either local or state law enforcement or federal investigators, to act as their agents in obtaining evidence of identity theft. This both eases the burden on the victim and aids police in investigating suspected identity theft rings. In addition it requires the existing Identity Theft Coordinating Committee to consult with state and local law enforcement agencies.

Acquiring the evidence of the fraudulent use of identity currently can be an enormous and time-consuming problem for victims. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act makes this job easier by establishing that any business presented with the FTC certificate identifying the person as a victim of identity theft, together with a police report and a government issued photo ID must deliver copies of all the financial records that document the fraud to the victim within 20 days. This is a critically important change from current law because it guarantees that victims will be able to obtain the evidence they need while also providing businesses more certainty that they are not violating someone's privacy or providing sensitive information to the wrong parties. It also provides new liability protections for businesses that make a good faith effort to assist victims of identity theft.

Of course, the greatest harm to consumers victimized by theft of their identity is often a bad credit rating or a poor credit score that results from fraudulent use of the consumer's identity. According to the FTC, it often takes about a year for people to discover someone is using personal information for fraudulent purposes, allowing significant damage to otherwise stellar credit records. Even after a consumer reports to a credit reporting agency that they have been victimized by identity theft, the consumer often can not get the reporting agencies to block reporting of activities that resulted from the identity theft.

My bill again requires that presentation of the FTC certificate, police report and photo identification establish that the person is in fact a victim of identity theft and requires credit-reporting agencies to block information that appears on a victim's credit report as a result of the identity theft. It also changes current law that requires individuals to bring suit against a credit reporting agency within two years from the time the agency commits a violation of laws on fair reporting of credit. This makes little sense, since it may be years before a misrepresentation comes to the attention of a victim of identity theft. The bill requires that the statute of limitations begin ticking from the time when a consumer discovers or has reason to know that a misrepresentation by a credit reporting agency has occurred.

The bill leaves in place state laws that are more stringent and provides that either federal prosecutors or State Attorneys General may enforce this law.

Jenni and Michael's stories illustrate the unique problems victims of identity theft face. Although penalties exist for identity thieves, no remedies are available for their victims. The scope of the problem is made worse because it's too easy for a criminal to steal someone's identity and cause serious harm before the theft is even discovered. And when these criminals cross state lines, it can be even harder for victims to trace the problem and repair the damage. For these reasons, it's imperative that we pass federal legislation for the victims of identity theft.

The government, creditors and credit reporting agencies have a shared responsibility to assist identity theft victims mitigate the harm that results from frauds perpetrated in the victim's name. We need to build up the law enforcement network, already started by the Federal Trade Commission and other federal agencies under the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998. We need to further improve law enforcement coordination, particularly between the various local and state jurisdictions combating identity theft and the associated crimes.

We also need to provide better and timelier information to businesses so they can head off fraud before it happens. That is why my bill also expands the jurisdiction of the interagency coordinating committee established under the Internet False Identification Act of 2000. Currently, the coordination committee has the mandate to study and report to Congress on federal investigation and enforcement of identity theft crimes. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance Act broadens the mandate for the coordinating committee to consider state and local enforcement of identity theft law and specifically requires the committee to examine and recommend what assistance the federal government can provide state and local law enforcement agencies to better coordinate in the battle against identity theft.

Mr. President, there is no doubt about the scope of the problem: identity theft is already a major problem, and it's getting worse. We must provide victims with the tools they need to regain control of their lives. The Identity Theft Victims Assistance of 2003 will help victims of identity theft recover their identity and restore their good credit. I look forward to working with my colleagues to promptly enact this bill into law.

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

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1419.

Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading this amendment, particularly at such an early hour of the morning. The reading of the amendment by the clerk shows exactly what we are up to this morning; that this is a simple amendment and a simple action we are asking the Senate to take. We are simply saying market manipulation under the Federal Power Act cannot be just and reasonable, and market manipulation should be found, under the Federal Power Act, by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, to be a wrongful act.

It did not take long to read that amendment but, as I said to this body last night, the fact that such law is not currently on the books has caused the ratepayers in my State great harm. It has caused ratepayers in Snohomish County, where I happen to live, a 54-percent rate increase. It has caused ratepayers in King County a 61-percent rate increase. It has caused ratepayers in Vancouver, WA, and businesses in Vancouver, WA, that can easily move to other parts of the country, an 88-percent increase. In eastern Washington, the part of the State hardest hit economically, where jobs are few and farmers struggle, it has caused ratepayers a 71-percent rate increase.

We are not talking about a rate increase that is just for 1 year. We are talking about long-term Enron contracts that were manipulated-- knowingly manipulated--and my ratepayers are stuck paying those contracts for the next 5, 6, and 7 years without relief.

We are here today to say one thing and be clear about it: This kind of manipulation that gouges ratepayers should be prohibited. This body should be clear. We should be unequivocal. We should say, as other entities have said, that this kind of manipulation is wrong and needs to be corrected.

I have a lot to say on this amendment this morning, but I know I am going to be joined by many of my colleagues from the West who have had their economies wrecked by gouging and illegal practices. I want to give them an opportunity to say something, too, because I think the face of the west coast economy and what it has meant for ratepayers needs to be clear.

We are trying to say with the Cantwell-Bingaman amendment that we do not want to see this kind of action happen on natural gas prices in other parts of the country. We do not want to see this take place 4 months from now, or 2 years from now.

Let's be really clear. These kinds of practices that were deployed by Enron, the various schemes of Fat Boy, Ricochet, Megawatt Laundering, and Load Shift are illegal.

I will yield 10 minutes to my colleague from Washington State, Mrs. Murray, who knows all too well that this crisis has caused real hardship in our State. She has been outspoken on this issue as well and sent many letters to various entities, including the Federal Regulatory Energy Commission, talking about how we need to make changes.

I yield her 10 minutes this morning to talk about some of the impacts she has seen firsthand.

I thank Senator Murray for her articulate capsulization of what this Energy bill and the Domenici title means to the Northwest.

The Senator has hit it right on the head, in that market manipulation has not been adequately dealt with in this legislation. Not only has there been no strong stand against market manipulation, there are further attempts toward deregulation with standard market design and regional transmission organizations that we in the Northwest find ludicrous.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a Seattle Post

Intelligence editorial from this morning's newspaper saying that the dubious Energy bill might be better shelved.

I thank my colleague for her diligence in expressing her opinion on this issue.

The RTO and standard market design issues she mentioned this morning show how unsound this idea is, not only in not protecting us from market manipulation but saying in a conceptual scheme, let's have a nationwide regional energy grid and let the people who will pay the most; that is, the power source that is willing to pay the most to get on to the grid, let them decide how power will be distributed.

For people in the Northwest, if we had power produced at cost-based rates; that is, cost plus what it takes to deliver to consumers--but all of a sudden FERC is pushing a concept of standard market design and saying, Enron or Reliance has more expensive power, we will shove it on to your grid and you pay that higher rate. As Senator Murray adequately pointed out, this is not a plan we endorse.

Some of my colleagues from the South also have concerns. Not only does this bill not do enough in protecting manipulation, it creates the possibility for more loopholes, more havoc, more chaos. Frankly, this is exactly how California got in trouble. Regarding a lot of market- based deregulation of the industry, everyone thought it would be competitive practices by which the cost of electricity would be driven down. This is not like something one can afford to have the price go up.

One county, Snohomish County, had a 54 percent rate increase. We had printed in the Record yesterday an article from the New York Times that Snohomish County has a 44 percent increase. Consumers got disconnected from their electricity because they could not afford to pay. This is not one of these schemes when the ``free market'' does not drive down the price of a utility and ratepayers have something to do. They cannot go over to Nordstrom's and buy a cheap electricity contract and get electricity. They cannot go over to Wal-Mart and buy affordable electricity. They are stuck with these rates. They are stuck with the 54 percent increase and they will be stuck for years ahead. We had a 44 percent disconnect rate in that county.

I yield.

I thank the Senator from California for asking that question and for being a cosponsor. The Senator understands all very well how painful this has been to the California economy.

I was not aware that a third of the problem could be directly attributable to the crisis in California. I know businesses have closed in Washington State. I know people have moved to other regions and made other investments because the rate is high in our State. I know the amount of money paid by higher utility costs for our west coast region is $6 billion. Ratepayers in the West paid a $6 billion increase in their electricity bills because of the market manipulation.

When I think about the little time we have, maybe 6 hours total to debate this amendment, we gouged the ratepayers $1 billion and we are going to talk $1 billion an hour here. That is hardly the remedy for which I think people are looking. What they are looking for is some immediate action, saying these kinds of activities will not take place again, in the future.

So the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, is correct. The impact has been devastating. It has been devastating to California's economy, and obviously we would like to see some relief. For the moment, what we are trying to say in the Cantwell-Bingaman-Feinstein-Boxer-Hollings- Wyden amendment is that this kind of market manipulation ought to be outlawed specifically in the Power Act today so this does not happen again.

As we are looking at natural gas price increases and people are getting anxious, why would we have an electricity title that is unclear as to what the penalties are? Actually, under the Oxley legislation of Senator Sarbanes and Congressman Oxley, on the SEC side, on the auditor's side, it said: We are going to get tough. These are new requirements. We are going to put this in the statute. Yet on the electricity title, we are repealing PUHCA, as my colleague from Washington State said, the one consumer protection law that has been on the books since 1935.

Why would you change a law that has been on the books since 1935 when you just had the biggest pyramid scheme ever to defraud consumers, knowingly admitted by Enron, knowingly admitted by FERC, knowingly admitted by the Department of Justice, knowingly printed by every newspaper in the country that manipulation was going on? Why would you repeal the consumer protection laws on the books? You would actually try to enforce them.

That is what the Cantwell amendment does today, as the clerk read this morning. It simply says the manipulation of those contracts cannot be just and reasonable and put that in the Power Act, plain and simple. Plain and simple, not the 43 pages we have in the title addressing this issue, which I am sure tries to address the issue, but it falls far short.

Yes.

My colleague from California has asked a question that is very important. No, I cannot imagine why any of my colleagues would want to vote against this amendment that prohibits market manipulation and puts that in the Power Act in a very simple way.

She mentioned something very interesting. A lot of people talk about this as the California energy crisis--the California energy crisis. Her economy has been devastated, but California actually had a retail cap, which meant even though those prices were being charged, and it left the California economy in disarray and a bill at the State legislative level that is exorbitant, what happened in Washington State, because we didn't have retail caps, is that the ratepayers actually saw the increase in their day-to-day electricity bills. They saw it to the tune of 88 percent increases, 61 percent increases, 54 percent increases. Those disconnect notices are real. The companies that have left or are leaving the State are real. The long-term impacts on our economy are real.

No, I cannot imagine, if this had happened to any of my other colleagues from other States, that they would not be in the same position I am in today, or Senator Murray, saying, at a minimum, outlaw this market manipulation.

So I appreciate the question the Senator from California has asked. I appreciate her keen attention to this issue. I know she has spoken many times on the floor about what has happened to our colleagues from the West and particularly how devastating it has been to her State. I appreciate that.

Yes.

I thank the Senator from North Dakota for his question. I know he has been diligent, being at the committee hearings during the time period in which the West tried to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--the policeman on the watch, if you will, when this mugging of ratepayers was happening--we tried to convince the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that prices were too high, that we were getting gouged. The Senator was very articulate at that time and subsequently, on the Commerce Committee, holding hearings, investigating the activities of Enron.

At that time, we were all speculating that manipulation happened. What has since come out is that the manipulation has been admitted to. It has been admitted to in the memos by the company in those various schemes you have talked about, and we have charts showing the names, of Death Star and Fat Boy and various other schemes. We have had the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission own up: Yes, this is market manipulation.

I have a report here, that is almost too heavy to handle, that basically documents all the manipulation that has happened. We have a Department of Justice investigating and saying yes, manipulation has happened. Yet this electricity title is very scant on putting those things in place.

The Senator is right. This new electricity title appeared last Friday night. I don't know what time it was, but well beyond the time, I am sure, that I was home in Washington State. We started in on it on Monday. But the bottom line is this underlying Domenici title has some language about: Let's make sure there is no false reporting.

That is in the current statute. It didn't save us. It didn't have anybody stop this or basically put everybody in jail.

Frankly, every time I get home, I hear from a constituent who is paying this high energy cost, paying this 61 percent or 88 percent rate increase, saying: Why isn't Ken Lay in jail? Why is it I am paying this rate increase and I am going to be paying it for 5 or 6 years and Ken Lay isn't in jail?

The transparency clause here is already on the books, making sure people do not report false information to the organization known as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is already on the books. The round trip trading, yes, is eliminated. But we have other schemes in this bill that are not included in the electricity title and are not outlawed. I think it should be simple.

The Power Act was created to protect consumers. We decided in interstate commerce; that is, the selling of power between States, that the Federal Government should play a role in protecting consumers on wholesale power rates.

We gave to the States the ability through their utility commissions the responsibility to protect consumers' electricity that is sold within each State. But we said as a Federal Government we want to make sure consumers have oversight of electricity. We said in the Federal Power Act we are going to make sure that rates are ``just and reasonable.'' That is our job--``just and reasonable.'' We set up a commission to do it. Yet now we have seen that market abuse is continuing. And we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are proposing we repeal the only consumer protection law which has been on the books since 1935--the Public Utility Holding Company Act--and in its place put some language that basically smacks the hand of Ken Lay but doesn't have any teeth in it--teeth that will really bring to justice people who have manipulated this market.

We may have another day when we can discuss what kind of relief might be given to California or Oregon or Washington. But this amendment today is geared toward protecting people from future abuse by simply saying in the Power Act that manipulated schemes are not just and reasonable; that they ought to be banned in the Power Act. I don't know what is wrong with saying that. I would like to go over the specific details so my colleagues understand exactly what we are trying to say and why the current underlying title comes up short in the sense of not doing enough to protect consumers.

As I said, first of all, the Power Act put in place a broad prohibition on the manipulation of electricity prices. We want to continue that. We want to make sure that in this language we say

manipulated electricity prices are wrong. In the Domenici substitute, we are going to say that round-trip trading; that is, buying and selling of electricity at inflated rates and inflated volumes, is illegal. That is a good thing to do. But that is particularly focused on the shareholder.

We are saying let us protect the shareholder to make sure these guys who are in this manipulative practice of buying and selling on the same day and inflating the price and inflating the volume is wrong and illegal. That is good in protecting shareholders. But how are ratepayers protected? I want to see protection for ratepayers.

In particular, my amendment would add a new paragraph to the act which is based on language the Federal energy commission has had in its power since 1934. This language would make it illegal for any company to use or apply any manipulative or deceptive device to circumvent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules and regulations on market manipulation.

It is simple. Let's just say it. What is wrong with saying what Enron has admitted they have done? What is wrong with saying what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has put in the report? What is wrong about saying what DOJ has said about manipulation? Why not be really clear and specific? Any company that uses or applies any manipulative or deceptive device to circumvent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission rules and regulations on market manipulation should be punished.

Second, we want to say specifically that electricity rates resulting from manipulative practices are not just and reasonable under the Federal Power Act.

As we talked about last night and as some of my colleagues have said, we have the establishment of the Power Act and the protections of ``just and reasonable,'' and it is our responsibility as a Federal Government to regulate wholesale energy prices between States. Why? Because in the 1930s, guess what happened. A bunch of companies had too much power and jacked up the price on consumers. They held them hostage. Electricity is something no one should be held hostage for, and certainly no one should lose their home because of a manipulated contract by a company that put a scheme in place.

We had a hearing before the Energy Committee in which I asked the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman, ``Do you think if you find market manipulation that it is ever going to be `just and reasonable,' or ever in the public interest?'' Chairman Wood told me, ``I can't think of an instance when it would be.''

We have the chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission saying I can't think this would ever be in the public interest or ever be just and reasonable. So why not put it in the Power Act? Guess what. Chairman Wood doesn't write legislation. We write legislation. We are the body that needs to take the responsibility. We are the body that needs to say to the American people we got the message that market manipulation has occurred.

My amendment would clear up any confusion and specifically declare in the Power Act that market manipulation is unjust and unreasonable.

Lastly, this amendment would amend the section 206 of the Federal Power Act requiring the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to revoke the company's authority to sell at market-based rates whenever the commission finds it ``knowingly'' employs a strategy to manipulate the electricity market. It says when the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finds people have manipulated a market that they revoke their market-based rates. Market-based rates is when the company decides what the rates are.

As I said, we in the Northwest have been traditionally comfortable with cost-based pricing that the public Power Act provided. Why? Because consumers get the power at the cost it takes to produce it. As a former business executive, I am all for marketplace competition. But marketplace competition has to have some regulation or some people basically end up controlling the market and consumers get whacked whatever they want. In this case, we know manipulation happened.

Why is this issue so important that we have to actually say to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission make sure when these contracts have been manipulated that you revoke the market-based rate authority? Believe it or not, even though Enron, months and months ago, admitted in various memos that they manipulated the market, it wasn't until about 2 weeks ago that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission actually revoked their market-based rate authority. Maybe it was 17 days ago. Sometime in the last 2\1/2\ weeks, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finally took the action they should have taken over a year and a half ago. We have a Federal agency that has been laggard at addressing this issue.

While we will have other amendments to address the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and address the fact they have not stepped up to their appropriate role in being the policeman on the books as this mugging of ratepayers happens, because clearly they haven't--it took us, the Members of the Senate and House of Representatives pounding on them for months about the high cost of electricity in our region to finally get a mitigation plan. Over a year later it finally took the hearings of Senator Dorgan and many others and an investigation that we finally got the truth on the table that contracts were actually manipulated. Now it is going to take the effort and focus of this body to say, Let's make it simple. Let us make it really clear: Manipulation of contracts is unjust and unreasonable. Any company that employs such tactics should not have free rein of the market by having market-based rates allowed under the Federal Power Act and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. It is simple.

I want to point out to my colleagues the fact that there are other entities that are way ahead of the game; that is, they are way ahead of us. They are way ahead of this body in saying that Enron manipulated contracts and something ought to be done about it. And that is bothersome. I think we are the protectors of the consumers in the oversight of how well an agency is doing its job and to which we have delegated the responsibility.

I am sure there are people in this body who probably never heard of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission until this crisis happened. I am not sure the agency has had the bright light of day shined on it too often in its Congressional history.

In fact, the Government oversight committee, then chaired by Senator Lieberman during this energy crisis, had some hearings on whether the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was doing its job. I thought that was very appropriate. It is very bothersome to me there are many newspaper articles and accountants of Ken Lay actually lobbying members of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on whether they should have a cap or a plan in trying to control or mitigate prices in the western energy market. He lobbied for Commissioners he thought would not put a cap in place. He lobbied for people he thought would continue the trend toward deregulation of the market.

I do not know why we should listen to Ken Lay's energy plan and who he thinks should be the nominees in these instances. We even have one newspaper article that suggested he was for the renomination of the current Chairman of the FERC but only if he would continue to have a free market strategy and make sure these prices that basically had been charged were kept in place. I think that is unconscionable. We need to do something to make sure this agency has our trust in the Senate and the trust of the American people. I think that is critically important.

Even though my colleagues have been hearing about this crisis for a couple years and some may think it is over, it is not over for the ratepayers of Washington State. It is not over for the California economy. We are stuck with this bill. We are stuck with the impact of these manipulated prices.

But I want to be clear, there are people who knew this was going on. And they have admitted it--Enron itself. Enron knew we were going to get access to this information eventually, so basically they produced the smoking gun memos where the company said it engaged in practices to manipulate the western power market. And they knew it was wrong.

In fact, even when these memos were starting to be uncovered, people realized these tactics had these exaggerated names that were not going to sound too positive, so they ended up saying: Well, let's change the names. I am not sure if it was Fat Boy--oh, yes, Death Star. Death Star was the name of a tactic used to manipulate the market, and they said: Well, if that comes out maybe that won't sound like such a good name. Let's change that to Cuddly Bear.

So somehow we were not going to find out there was market manipulation in place because Death Star all of a sudden became Cuddly Bear. It does not matter whether you change the code name, the impact on my State is the same. It is wrong, and this body ought to outlaw it.

So when FERC finally began to investigate, they realized this problem, as their report concludes, was significant and ``epidemic,'' and the epidemic market manipulation took place in the West. Their own report says there is overwhelming evidence that suggests ``Enron and its affiliates intentionally engaged in a variety of market manipulation schemes that had profound adverse impacts on the market outcomes.''

In fact, the report goes on to say:

Enron's corporate culture fostered a disregard for the

American energy customer. The success of the company's

trading strategies, while temporary, demonstrates the need

for explicit prohibition on harmful and fraudulent

market behavior and for aggressive market monitoring and

enforcement.

That is what the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is saying has transpired and what we need. It ``demonstrates the need for explicit prohibition on harmful and fraudulent market behavior and for aggressive market monitoring and enforcement.''

It is not FERC's job to write the law. It is FERC's job to enforce it and interpret it. Our job is to act. They are telling us they need to have this market behavior monitored and enforced, and that this problem demonstrates the need for an explicit prohibition. Let's give them that explicit prohibition. Let's put into the Federal Power Act that the manipulation of prices cannot be just and reasonable and companies that participate in that practice do not deserve to have market-based rates.

As I mentioned, FERC just came to this conclusion recently, so it is a little troubling that it took them so long, after so much damage has been done--$3-plus billion to the California economy, over $1 billion to the Washington economy, and billions more to Oregon and, I am sure, other parts of the West. So we don't want them to be confused or slow to pick up the regulatory framework and to use it as a hammer against these kinds of manipulations. So let's make it really clear.

DOJ thinks this manipulation is wrong. The U.S. Department of Justice believes what Enron did was, as they said, wrong and fraudulent. The Department of Justice continues to conduct investigations into Enron's activities. It has filed criminal charges levied against 16 different employees, most recently resulting in one of those 16 arrested, a trading desk manager. Already, two Enron traders have pleaded guilty on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. And charges are pending against another.

So DOJ knows it is wrong. Yet in the electricity title we have not put in strict enough language to prevent it from happening again.

One of the most recent criminal complaints filed against an Enron trader by the U.S. Attorney's Office says: Based on the facts, there is probable cause to conclude that between approximately June 1999 and January 2001 the Enron trader unlawfully conspired to commit and did commit acts in violation of the Federal law. There is probable cause to conclude that the trader committed the offense of wire fraud in violation to title 18, United States Code, and conspired to commit the offense of wire fraud in the northern districts of California and elsewhere.

The Department of Justice knows these acts are manipulative and illegal. The fact that they only have two people indicted so far--and we still don't have justice as it relates to Ken Lay; and it was the diligence of those on the west coast and Members here saying manipulation went on--bothers me; it has taken so long. So I certainly want to make sure there is no question that we think these activities are wrong and that something should be done about it. That is why we need tough language.

Now, this body did its job as it relates to the auditing of regulators and reform after Enron. This CRS report for Congress-- basically that is part of the report about the Sarbanes-Oxley act-- talked about how we stepped up and did our job as it related to the auditing and accounting practices of these organizations.

Now, why was that important? It was important because not only did ratepayers get gouged, but people counted on those companies and their truthful reporting in their businesses. And the investors investing in those businesses counted on that truthful reporting. We uncovered that there was a lot of manipulation going on there as well. There was a lot of misinformation about what really was the cash and capital of these companies and whether the investments by investors really should have been made, given that the long-term outlook of the companies was not based on real numbers but on these manipulated schemes.

So what did we do? We didn't repeal accounting laws that were on the books to protect consumers. We stepped up and said: Let's make this stronger. Let's get the Sarbanes-Oxley act in place. In fact, the act creates a new oversight board for auditors. It prohibits auditing firms from providing certain consulting work for auditing clients so there is no conflict of interest in who they work for. It requires the rotation of all the partners. It imposes new regulations on corporate boards and executives. It increases government oversight and criminal penalties. We took tough action as it related to the auditors. We protected the shareholders moving forward from having this kind of scheme from an auditing perspective happen again.

If we were so ready to jump on this issue as it related to the auditing practices and the accounting practices of these companies, and we protected the shareholders and the individuals who may have had pension plans or investments in these companies, why aren't we now going to protect the ratepayers who actually got gouged with the high cost of these contracts? Why aren't we going to say this is so egregious that we should never allow it to happen again; that we, the Congress, believe that we are no apologists for Enron? We are not going to condone market manipulation. We are going to say, just as we did with accounting rules and auditing rules, we are going to have in the Power Act the same message; that manipulating contracts is unjust and unreasonable and anybody who participates in market manipulation does not get to have free market power under the Power Act. It is simple.

Let me talk about what is in here because I believe Chairman Domenici and his staff probably did try to say that some manipulations happen and we ought to do something about it. But I don't think we have covered the full gamut of issues that need to be covered. The Domenici amendment refers to round-trip trading. Round-trip trading is simultaneously buying and selling electricity to stimulate both the amount of electricity trading that was going on and to stimulate and increase the price. So the Domenici amendment says round-trip trading is wrong. And that is good. It is good that we took one of these schemes and shot a hole into it and said this is wrong.

But there are many other schemes that are not covered under the Domenici title: Fat Boy, also known as Icing Load, to create real-time power markets. According to Enron's own memos dated December 6 and December 8, 2000, Fat Boy was ``one of the most fundamental strategies used by the traders.'' According to one, ``the oldest trick in the book'' and ``is now being used by other market participants.''

What Fat Boy did, when you boil it down, is Enron submitted false power supply schedules to the California ISO--the California organization in which power was bought and sold--and other market participants for the purpose of receiving payments when it didn't actually need the extra generation. So in essence Enron received untold millions of dollars for pretending to keep the lights on in the West when it really didn't need to. There is nothing in this current Domenici title that

prohibits Fat Boy from happening. Yes, you say, you can't lie to FERC. There is nothing in the act that says you can't lie to the California ISO, which is exactly what Enron did under the Fat Boy scheme.

That was the whole point of California deregulation. That is what people went to the legislature and sold them, just as they are trying to sell us. Hey, guess what, California. If you deregulate, market competition is going to drive down the price. And we will create this mechanism, the California ISO, which stands for the independent system operator. We are going to make this scheme where an independent system operator is going to get you cheap electricity. And all those people in the marketplace who want to sell power and sell it at a cheap price, we are going to drive down the price.

That is not what happened. The price went up. It escalated. So they defrauded the California ISO. There is nothing in this underlying bill that protects the ratepayers from having Fat Boy happen again because it does nothing to prohibit lying under these kinds of schemes to the California ISO or any other organization like that.

Richochet was also known as Ping Pong. The sole purpose of this scheme was to evade California's attempts to put price controls in place. Knowing that FERC wasn't really paying attention, they were given market-based rates. They said: Go out and see if you can drive down the price of electricity. And under this scheme, basically to get out of the price controls that California was trying to put in place and control, the traders, instead of trading within the State of California, would ship their power outside of the State and then ship it back in. Yes, that is right, just like the ping pong ball, back and forth on a ping pong table, pushing power to one side and pushing it back--Ricochet.

If we push it out of California, then we are not subject to those State regulations, and guess what. When we ship the power back in, we can ship it in at the price we want. That way we avoid the caps of the California ISO and the power exchange that is trying to enforce them.

So the prohibition on round-tripping in the Domenici bill does nothing to prohibit Ricochet or Ping Pong from happening again. This kind of practice of shipping out of State and shipping back in is not illegal under the Domenici title. But it will be under the Cantwell- Bingaman amendment if this body will adopt it.

Let me talk about Death Star for a second. That is the one, yes, renamed Cuddly Bear. I don't care what you call it, there is no way the American public, the public in Washington State, doesn't know that this wasn't a cuddly bear. This was an unbelievable scheme that has ruined our economy. The essential strategy of Death Star was for Enron to earn money by lying about its transmission needs, scheduling transmission in the opposite direction of the congestion. No energy, however, is actually put on the grid or taken off, according to the company's own memos.

So wait a minute. We were saying to people this is what is going to be on the grid, but then we don't really put it on the grid.

The U.S. Attorney's Office described in a June court paper that Enron submitted schedules to the ISO that pretended to move the electrons owned by Enron, but in reality it didn't. Because of this, it appeared to relieve congestion. So the ISO awarded Enron congestion relief payments. Basically by pretending it was putting power out there to relieve congestion, which it really didn't, the ISO gave them relief payments. The ISO was deceived because part of the looping scheme was outside of California and, therefore, it couldn't be detected, thereby costing more money.

According to the Department of Justice, senior Enron traders denied they were doing this practice or violating any market rules. So basically what we are saying is that there were people at Enron who told other fine people who probably worked at Enron and who were trying to do their jobs, there is nothing wrong with this. This is totally OK to do.

One of the trading managers was smart enough and said: We are worried that the details of the strategy would be leaked to the ISO and other power companies or the public. One of the consequences of his concern was that he was instructed to refrain from calling this Death Star. That is when they said: Gee, employees are getting nervous about this scheme; they don't think it is right. Let's change the name to Cuddly Bear and maybe everybody will be OK with it. Well, we are not OK with it.

The underlying Domenici electricity title does not prohibit Death Star from happening again. Only the Cantwell-Bingaman amendment will do that.

Load shifting was another ploy. To employ this tactic, Enron would distort its transmission schedule to create the appearance of congestion, or knowingly increase the congestion cost to all market participants. Again, more misinformation. The underlying Domenici title says nothing of falsified information provided to the FERC. Well, FERC already has language in there about reporting. It didn't get them to stop Enron from following these practices. It doesn't require or make illegal any of these practices of providing misinformation to the California ISO.

Remember, the California ISO was an organization that basically was created after deregulation. After deregulation, people went to the California Legislature and said: We will create a mechanism where the marketplace buys and sells power at a cheap rate. We will let the market do it.

Under the California ISO, the independent system operators basically were supposed to help control price. That is where the misinformation was, where the lying and fabrication of information took place. This underlying bill does nothing to protect or say that those kinds of activities to the California ISO, an independent system operator, are illegal. It has no teeth as it relates to that. So nothing in this underlying Domenici electricity title will protect us from load shifting. The Cantwell-Bingaman amendment will.

Get Shorty. Like many Americans, I thought this was a title of a movie. I thought it was supposed to be a joke. But in my State it was not a joke to the ratepayers who actually had a premium price increase. Basically, what they did was they gambled that it would be able to find service at a cheaper price the next day. Enron's own memos admitted that ``this was obviously a sensitive issue because of reliability concerns.'' Indeed, the company stated that it would be ``difficult to justify our position if the lights go out because these services were not available, and the reason was because we were selling them without actually having them in the first place.''

They basically were saying: We are going to have a scheme where we are going to say there is power available when there is not. And then when the lights went out, they knew they were going to have concerns. They knew. How they could think the west coast economy would not be reached by this havoc being laid upon them. I cannot understand. I cannot understand the corporate greed that goes into this kind of thinking--that somehow this kind of marketing strategy would be good for California, good for Washington, good for America, good for corporate business, good for our confidence as a country--confidence that we as a government are going to say this kind of manipulation is wrong. It has created a huge deal of unrest in the West. Nothing in the Domenici electricity title prevents Get Shorty from happening.

Wheel Out. I am not sure what marketer came up with this one. Enron would submit schedules for a transmission on line they knew was out of service. In doing so, the company would earn extra payments for their trouble. It is not even available. It is sort of like a cab driver heading straight for a traffic jam in order to keep the meter running on an unsuspecting tourist, basically saying: I am going to get you into congestion and it is going to cost you a lot. The poor passenger in the car doesn't know there is a quicker route, a cheaper way, a more expedient way to control the cost. But unlike a cab ride, the costs of this are not in the tens of dollars but in the millions of dollars, and the cost to our economy has been in the billions of dollars. There is nothing in the Domenici underlying amendment that would prohibit the Wheel Out strategy from happening again.

The Cantwell-Bingaman amendment says that the Wheel Out strategy is

manipulation of the market--it is manipulation. Under the Federal Power Act, it cannot be just and reasonable that companies that deploy these kinds of practices should not have market-based rates.

I hope there are not any more schemes. I hope I don't have any more charts because this is enough. This is enough of the tactics that were deployed by a company that basically thought that making a few more dollars through manipulative practices was somehow OK to do.

I read some of those quotes from employees at Enron who said: I don't think this is right; I think this is a concern. Yet they continued.

So the Cantwell-Bingaman amendment, which is supported by Senators Hollings, Murray, Boxer, Feinstein, and others, simply says let's put into the Power Act that manipulation is not just and reasonable.

We have had lots of support: The Northwest Public Power Association, Northwest Energy Coalition, AARP, Consumers Union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Consumers for Fair Competition, National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, Union of Concerned Scientists, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and many other organizations, such as members of the AFL-CIO, and many people who are concerned about the economic impact of manipulation happening prospectively on natural gas.

Why won't somebody just take this experiment that happened in California and the West and say, OK, we will--with the current Domenici language, Congress barely smacks the hands of those Enron traders. Gee, only one of them went to jail. I guess you have to be smart enough not to be the one who gets caught with a memo on an electronic file on your computer, and, guess what? You will get out of this. So let's take this same kind of scheme and deploy it for natural gas.

That is what this amendment is about. This amendment is about saying that natural gas in the future will have better protections of consumers in mind regarding potential rate increases. So, if we have an increase in natural gas prices, maybe because of shortage of supply, guess what, we will really know that it is about shortage of supply. We will really know. We will be able to tell consumers in America that we really know it was about not having enough supply; it was not because some natural gas producer had tons of supply but manipulated the market through a variety of schemes and somehow gouged consumers, and that is why your rates are higher. Can we not give the American consumer that kind of confidence about our energy? I sure hope we can.

This issue has a real impact on people, and I know my colleagues are in the Chamber, and they want to speak, but I wish to share one letter from an 11-year-old girl whom I met almost a year and a half ago. I did not know at the time she had sent this letter, but she lives in a region of the State where they have had a 71 percent rate increase--a huge increase.

This 11-year-old girl sent an emotional letter about how the crisis was affecting her family, that her mom was living paycheck to paycheck. That actually the job her mom had was dependent upon affordable electricity. She wrote:

This is the first time I've lived in a house. This is the

most important thing in my life, that we get to live in a

house. Please listen to what might happen to hundreds of

kids, including myself, when my mom might lose her job and we

might have to move out of our house.

The impact is being felt by young children, not just by the parents who might lose their job. Not just by the Snohomish County ratepayers who had 44 percent disconnect notices, but by young children who are fearful that their families are not going to make it because these schemes caused these rate increases that we are stuck with for years and years.

There is somebody sitting in their office somewhere in America saying: Gee, why don't you just sue those Enron people? Why don't you just sue them and tell them that under the Federal law, they cannot manipulate these contracts? I think people in America would be surprised to know that Enron is suing these utilities. Enron is turning around and suing these utilities and forcing them to pay these rate increases. They are suing the Snohomish County public utility district, saying: That contract--that has been manipulated--that you signed for 5 years of power, even though it is manipulated and you are paying a 54- percent increase, we are not letting you out of that contract; we are suing you.

This is the only body that can protect people in the future. It is only the Senate and the Congress that can say: This manipulation is wrong. This manipulation, moving forward, is wrong. Then ratepayers in my State in the future, if this happens, might have a chance.

We have had letters from senior citizens who are trying to live on a fixed income. This burden has made them make decisions about how they are going to live in the future. One woman from Okanogan County said: My friends, myself, and my neighbors cannot afford the higher rates:

I am in a total panic because I am disabled and barely can

pay for heat now. With these rates going up as much, it will

make it a life-threatening situation. This will become a

public health disaster. To make matters worse, many

businesses are planning on shutting down here due to the

terrible economy and the power costs. This is putting the

last nail in our coffin in a dire economic situation in Omak,

For 10 minutes of the time I have remaining, Mr. President.

How much time is remaining?

Five minutes.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the ranking member, Senator Bingaman, who is a cosponsor of my amendment. He has worked hard in bringing attention to everyone about this issue of market manipulation.

Mr. President, I know my colleagues from the other side of the aisle want a chance to use up some of their time. I do not know whether the chairman wanted to speak now. The Senator from Louisiana was going to be yielded a few minutes, also. I do not know if the chairman wanted to use time.

I yield to the Senator from Louisiana 5 minutes.

The Senator is yielded 10 minutes.

The Senator from Oregon would like a few minutes. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon 5 minutes.

Mr. President, how much time is available?

Does the Senator from New Mexico wish to complete his comments?

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman of the committee giving time to the Senator from California so she could explain and respond to her views on this issue. I appreciate my colleagues from the West engaging in this debate. I appreciate the Senator from Idaho coming to the floor and reiterating to this body, yes, how ratepayers in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho got stiffed. That is the right word. We got stiffed. We got stiffed with paying a bill more exorbitant than ratepayers should have to pay.

The debate that has ensued in the last few minutes is whether the Domenici underlying amendment has enough protections in it to protect consumers or whether we need the Cantwell amendment. It is a clear and simple and plain statement that market manipulation should be outlawed in the Federal Power Act as not being just and reasonable.

I thank the Senator from Louisiana for her comments. She supports the underlying Domenici title, but she supports my amendment as well because she knows that kind of language can be helpful and can be specific.

Let me be clear. If anybody thinks that the Enron manipulation didn't have a profound and adverse impact on the marketplace and that this is all about poor management in California, I can assure you that is not the case. This is about whether this body is going to adopt tough standards against market manipulation so there is no question by the public. So the public doesn't debate, if there was a shortage of supply or manipulation going on?

We know there was manipulation going on. We have proof of it. The FERC itself said:

Enron and its affiliates intentionally engaged in a variety

of market manipulation schemes that had profound, adverse

impact on market outcome.

There it is. The FERC said itself that market manipulation had profound, adverse impact on the market. So we know for a fact that market manipulation had an impact in California, it had an impact in Washington, it had an impact in Oregon, and it had an impact in Idaho. The question is whether this body is going to do enough to protect consumers in the future.

So the chairman of the committee--I appreciate his earnest time on the electricity title, and I appreciate the fact that he wants to have some protection in this legislation. But these protections don't go far enough.

Let me explain why. There is transparency language in the underlying Domenici title. Some of those powers are already in place with FERC. They are not doing us any good because reporting to FERC is one thing; reporting to the California ISO, the independent systems operator, who basically was the cog by which all the manipulations took place, you are not under any kind of threat or penalty for reporting falsified information to them. That is where the manipulation took place, so the Domenici title does not cover that situation.

There is a lot of talk in the bill about the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and there is a section in the bill that tries to beef up that language. That is a noble attempt. I much prefer the Feinstein amendment which has very specific language about closing a loophole.

I have a letter from the National American Securities Administrators Association. They basically say the Domenici language is flawed. These are Federal regulators who are supposed to regulate this policy. They say the Domenici language is flawed because it will prohibit any Federal or State agency from obtaining information directly from a board of trade or exchange or market involving commodities, and that State and Federal agencies will be impeded from investigating violations of these wide range of commodities.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter from the National American Securities Administrators Association, about how the Domenici language is trying to correct some of the problems is actually causing a new problem and is not going to protect people, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the bottom line is, in this amendment, while round-trip trading is covered and some, I am sure, well- intentioned language on reporting and falsifying information to FERC, it does not cover a myriad of other manipulative schemes

that have been deployed and used by Enron.

Fat Boy is not outlined under the Domenici language. Ricochet is not outlined under the Domenici language. Death Star is not outlined under the Domenici language. Load Shift, Get Shorty, and Wheel Out are not outlined under the Domenici language.

I understand the chairman wants to see that the manipulation stops. In this Senator's opinion, that manipulation will stop when this body stands up and says to the American people with simple language in the Power Act: Manipulated prices are not just, they are not reasonable, and anyone who deploys them are not doing so in the public interest, and we cannot give them market-based rates.

If this body will say this, then any future debate about natural gas prices will not be about whether some company manipulated them, it will be about the real issues of the supply and demand.

Let's give the consumers confidence that market manipulation is prohibited in Federal law and that this body does not condone Enron's activities but is going to be aggressive in outlawing them.

Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Harkin and Senator Rockefeller be added as cosponsors to the amendment.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to Antonio Gonzales, Daniel Archuleta, Jasmine Fallstitch, Christine Nelson, Ryan Davies, James Guttierrez, Frank Murray, Tara Peterkin, and Scott Pearsall for today.

That is correct.

My colleagues from throughout the West are very concerned that they have ample time to express their opinion about the electricity title and this particular amendment. So if you want to limit it to an hour tonight, we will use the 2 hours tomorrow to give my colleagues a chance to speak.

If I could clarify, I don't know whether we will actually physically lay down the amendment tonight or the first thing at 9 a.m., but we will talk about the amendment, use that 1 hour tonight, and use the 2 hours according to the agreement.

Absolutely.

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their cooperation. We want all Members to understand the amendment I will be offering

tomorrow, and we certainly want the American public to understand it. I have a few comments on the Domenici underlying amendment and on the Bingaman amendment as well. They are related to our overall effort.

Let me step back for a moment. The debate we have been having involves important issues about how America moves forward on an energy bill, how we diversify our energy away from foreign dependence, and how we make the right investments. I have a lot of concerns about this bill, that it is not on target making the right investments. I am sure I will have a chance to get to that point later as this bill continues to be debated. But what I feel is most important tonight is that my colleagues and the American people understand this bill has significant changes in it as it relates to consumer protections and the failure we have had as a government in protecting consumers from the energy crisis that has damaged the west coast economy.

When I think of this debate we have had for the last hour or two-- actually for the last day or so--about how much time we should give to the Energy bill, I find it amazing. Because the west coast economy got hit basically to the tune of about $6 billion. That is the cost for manipulated contracts that we in the west paid for in our economies. So when you say, let's debate these amendments and let's get them off the table, let's give 6 hours to debating these amendments, we are basically saying to the west coast ratepayers: We are giving you 1 hour for every billion dollars you were gouged by Enron and market manipulators.

We can do better than that. We ought to be willing to give the American public at least an hour for every million dollars they paid in high energy costs that were part of manipulated contracts. I feel very fortunate that I have an hour tonight and that my colleagues from the west and I have 2 hours tomorrow to talk about this important issue. Frankly, the American people need to have their day in this body to debate fully whether we want to have changes to our consumer protection laws, whether this body, the Senate, is taking adequate measures to protect them from having another Enron crisis happen again, and whether our own regulators, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, are doing their job in protecting consumers.

This debate we just had about the underlying Domenici substitute and the Bingaman amendment is about that, about whether we should allow for more of the free market or whether we should have more controls.

My point to the American people is that we have a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that has not done its job. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission deserves an ``F'' when it comes to protecting consumers.

Let me show what has happened in my home State of Washington, how consumers have been gouged by high electricity prices. Yes, we were the unfortunate State that got caught with the second worst drought on record which meant our hydro system wasn't producing as much power as we needed it to produce. Consequently, what happened? Well, we had to go out on the spot market and buy electricity. When we went out to buy that electricity, we bought it at a time when California had gone through their deregulation and there were exorbitant prices, sometimes 300 times the price of electricity. Our utilities were forced to buy that power. Our consumers were forced to pay that price.

You say: Well, that is an unfortunate circumstance of that time period and the fact that your State had a drought. I can tell you it wasn't all related to our State having a drought. What we have found since this time is these contracts were manipulated. Enron has said they were manipulated. The Department of Justice has said they have been manipulated. We have a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission report--that report is so voluminous, many pages--that basically documents all the different ways in which these contracts were manipulated.

What is the result? The result of that has been in my home State of Washington we have had utilities that have ended up having increases in their rates. Down in southwest Washington, in the Vancouver area, there has been an 88 percent rate increase; in parts of King County, a 61 percent rate increase; in Snohomish County, a 54 percent rate increase; over in eastern Washington, in Okanogan, one of the areas that is most economically hard pressed in our State, a 71 percent rate increase; over on the Olympic peninsula, a 43 percent rate increase.

I ask my colleagues: Which States would be willing to put up with those kinds of rate increases, from an energy crisis where contracts have been manipulated, and say it is OK?

The kicker in this situation is these aren't just rates for 1999. Because of this crisis and the manipulated contracts Enron has put forth, we are stuck with those high energy costs for the length of those Enron contracts. In fact, even though this report from a Federal agency says these contracts have been manipulated, and unjustly so, these utilities, particularly the one here in Snohomish County, have to pay this 54 percent rate increase for another 5 years. They are stuck paying these Enron contracts for 5 years.

When the utility said: Why should we be paying this price? Why should we pay a contract that has been knowingly manipulated? Enron is suing them. Can you imagine that? Enron, who has admitted guilt in manipulating contracts, has the audacity to sue utilities in my State, forcing them to continue to pay these high rates.

This debate is about whether we are going to get some relief. Somehow people think maybe there is a way this rate increase of 54 percent doesn't really impact people. If you think somehow this really isn't causing harm, I want to submit for the Record a New York Times article from December of 2002, just last December, where it showed we had more than 14,000 customers from that local utility in Snohomish County basically disconnected from their energy source because they couldn't pay.

We saw a 44 percent increase in actual disconnections in Snohomish County because people could not afford to pay that 54 percent rate increase.

I ask unanimous consent to print the article I referred to in the Record.

It is impacting people in my State. One of the largest employers in the State, the Boeing Company, has their major manufacturing base located in that particular county. In that county, they have made it clear they planned to build the next generation plane. They are not sure whether they are going to build that plane there or even in Washington State. What is on the list of issues about which they are concerned? The cost of energy, the high cost of energy. So again, individual ratepayers are suffering. Businesses are suffering. Businesses may decide the long-term investment in Washington State isn't worth it just because Enron manipulated contracts at a time my consumers and my businesses needed affordable electricity.

We are here tonight to talk about this situation and what the Senate is going to do about it. It is clear we are not doing enough.

I think there are newspapers all over the country who basically have said we are not doing enough about it. The New York Times said, ``This energy crisis dims small business hopes.'' This is an administration that wants to get the economy on the right track. How can you get the economy on the right track if you won't do anything about manipulated energy contracts? Basically, they say the ``perfect storm is creating a return of the energy crisis,'' and ``power cuts in the cold winter ahead for those struggling to pay for electricity.''

Just like I said, in Snohomish County, with a 44 percent increase in disconnect notices and an energy crunch, the Northwest might face another power crisis. ``Costs hit home for the energy crisis'' is in the San Francisco Chronicle. Believe me, we are going to hear from my colleagues from California tomorrow about how this crisis has impacted them.

Again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle can spend as much time as they want talking about the need for future energy supply, which I am all for. About the fact that we should have been building more supply. That is fine. But you have to address the issue. The issue is these contracts were manipulated. They were schemed. The American people will come to know them by name--Get Shorty, Fat Boy, and a variety of others. That might seem humorous to some people, but it is not humorous when real people suffer the consequences. We are not doing enough about it.

So what else have newspapers said? The shocking thing is they basically are saying what I think some of my colleagues, particularly on the other side of the aisle, want to deny. I am not sure exactly why they don't want to address it. But they say, ``Enron met with energy regulators during the crisis.'' ``Enron monitor failed to do the

job.'' ``Federal energy regulators inept,'' this says. ``Enron execs often called the FERC brass during crisis.''

What is going on here is we have had this incredible lobbying effort by Enron in getting FERC commissioners and doing nothing about this crisis, and playing an overexcessive role. Now we have the choice as Members of the Senate as to whether we are going to stand up and do something about this.

I am outraged and I have been outraged about this issue for some time, because I go home almost every weekend and I see the real consequences of this problem. But even that pales in comparison to the steps I think this body is going to mistakenly take if it passes the Domenici electricity title as it is.

Mr. President, the Domenici electricity title as it is does nothing to protect consumers on power generation. The Domenici electricity title basically takes the only consumer protection law on the books-- the Public Utility Holding Company Act--and repeals it. The good Senator from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, tried to say: ``Are you sure we want to do that because I don't think we should?''

If you are going to change the oversight of these utilities, you ought to put some protections in place. When they do these mergers, maybe we ought to figure out a way that we have some oversight of this and protect it. We will have some other amendments--Senator Dayton's and some of mine--that say, listen, we cannot go far enough in protecting consumers. How could you go too far in protecting consumers when we have had one of the biggest energy schemes in our country's history just unfold in the last couple of years?

I applaud this body for passing new accounting requirements. I applaud giving the SEC more to do on accountability, making sure that books are not cooked, that schemes are not put into place. I applaud the Attorney General from New York for his aggressive action in making sure that those who have been participating from the financial side in helping to portray to the American people that somehow these companies were healthy, when in fact all they were deploying were buying-and- selling schemes with inflated pricing. I applaud all of that. But what this bill fails to do is take a similar step. It fails to take a similar step because it is repealing the only consumer protection bill we have for electricity.

So how did we get there? Some of my colleagues mentioned the Federal Power Act and the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935. During the Roosevelt era, guess what? We saw the same thing. No surprise. A bunch of energy companies had total control of the market, created a pyramid scheme, jacked up the price on consumers. Guess what? The Roosevelt administration said: We cannot tolerate this. Consumers need to be protected.

So 1935 might seem like a long time ago to some of my colleagues, but I know one thing--too much concentration of power by a free market does not deliver affordable energy.

My State is a big believer in cost-based pricing. We have a lot of public power. That public power provides us with affordable energy. I am not opposed to market-based rates. I am not opposed to the free enterprise system. As a former businesswoman, I like the marketplace where businesses can compete and where competition exists, where anybody gets nervous when there is too much consolidation and when there is no oversight.

So, basically, what we have here in the last 2 years is more of a move toward market-based pricing, without the regulatory oversight. I would love to hear from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who think State utility commissions don't have a responsible role in making sure that utility rates are not too high and too expensive. I would love to hear from my colleagues that somehow they don't think the Federal Government should play a role in wholesale rates and in assuring consumers that wholesale rates are just and reasonable. But I can tell you this. There is nothing just and reasonable about manipulating contracts. Even Patrick Wood, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said so before the Energy Committee:

``Yes, that is right, Senator Cantwell, contracts that have

been manipulated cannot be just and reasonable.''

So why don't we do something about taking the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and strengthening it? Why don't we smack them on the hand and say actually you have not done your job, because if you want to go through the sequencing--the issue is that in this timeframe of the explosion of the California market and the crisis and the problem, what happened is prices rose to that exorbitant 300 percent increase. We all started saying we need to do something about this; we need to have some sort of price cap or price mitigation.

In fact, my predecessor, Slade Gorton, and several other Senators, actually wrote letters saying we need to do something about this energy crisis. The former Energy Secretary, now the Governor of New Mexico, also said we have to do something to stop this manipulation of pricing.

The prices actually started unfolding in May of 2000 even though a variety of people said there is important business to do here. Secretary Richardson, in December of 2000, 4 or 5 months later, said this is an emergency and we need to do something about it.

The next day FERC basically decides they are going to deny a request to do anything about capping the prices. They are not going to do anything! It took the outrage of many Members of Congress, and almost a year later when a bipartisan group of Senators introduced a bill to put on price caps that in April of 2001 the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission finally responded and said: Oh, yes, these prices are outrageous, and we should do something about them.

Mind you, all of us were saying during that time period that these contracts have been manipulated. They have been manipulated, and it is not fair. Our ratepayers should not have to pay these exorbitant prices. At that time, people were saying: This is just about supply, and if you guys built more supply, you would not have a problem. We have come to find out that it is not all about supply. It is about those manipulated contracts.

What happened is we finally heard from the source itself: Enron declaring bankruptcy, an investigation of potential energy market manipulations, and then finally, in March of 2003, FERC issuing this report saying the prices have been manipulated.

We had to drag that Federal entity kicking and screaming into the realization that, one, the prices were too high; two, that consumers in the West absolutely needed relief; and three, that these prices have been manipulated. Now we are trying to drag them into the realization that manipulated contracts that cost ratepayers 54-, 77-, 80-percent increases over the next 5 or 6 years are hardly just and reasonable or hardly in the public's interest.

The underlying Domenici amendment says: Go ahead and trust these FERC people; they are doing a good job; and let's take away any of those basic tools they have to regulate this industry.

I am surprised that some of my colleagues have not said: Let's just do away with FERC and deal with the Power Act. We would be better going to court and having the courts decide in our favor than having a regulatory entity that fails to do its job. But I know this: tonight and tomorrow we should not be talking about repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act. We should not be doing that.

PUHCA really does hold companies accountable for their business service to retail customers. It gives the SEC the authority to review these mergers and put a prohibition on acquisitions if they do not think there is evidence that we are going to have efficient rates. It makes sure they review the complex corporate structures. It makes sure that these companies do not exploit the consumer. It really did give the SEC the ability to regulate pyramid schemes that were based on fictitious or unsound value assets that had no relationship to fair sums of what was being invested and how much the company was worth. It is amazing, that was a 1935 act. I guess history really does repeat itself because these are the same abuses we have seen in the Enron situation.

Remember the maze of affiliates and offshore partnerships that were part of the Enron scheme? Remember Enron's diversification into businesses as far afield as trading of weather derivatives

and water supply? Remember how Enron inflated their stock price and then it collapsed? It created such a gaping hole for individuals that they ended up losing their entire investment for retirement because of the collapse.

I can tell you this: We do not want to repeal PUHCA. What we want to do is have some further securities put in place. Some of those securities need to respond to these various schemes that have been perpetrated on the American consumer.

If we could see some of those schemes, I think the American public would be shocked to know that someone actually spent their time thinking up schemes in which the market could be manipulated.

I even have an article that Enron's Ken Lay admitted that he had gone to the then-current FERC Commissioner and said: If you continue to help us on this scheme, then we will continue to support you for the renomination of FERC. I guess Mr. Hebert was not quite so supportive because he was not renominated to that post. I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

The being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, May 25, 2001]

Power Trader Tied to Bush Finds Washington All Ears

(By Lowell Bergman and Jeff Gerth)

Curtis Hebert Jr., Washington's top electricity regulator,

said he had barely settled into his new job this year when he

had an unsettling telephone conversion with Kenneth L. Lay,

the head of the nation's largest electricity trader, the

Enron Corporation.

Mr. Hebert, chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, said that Mr. Lay, a close friend of President

Bush's, offered him a deal: If he changed his views on

electricity deregulation, Enron would continue to support him

in his new job.

Mr. Hebert (pronounced A-bear) recalled that Mr. Lay

prodded him to back a national push for retail competition in

the energy business and a faster pace in opening up access to

the electricity transmission grid to companies like Enron.

Mr. Hebert said he refused the offer. ``I was offended,''

he recalled, though he said he knew of Mr. Lay's influence in

Washington and thought the refusal could put his job in

jeopardy.

Asked about the conversation, Mr. Lay praised Mr. Hebert,

but recalled it differently. ``I remember him requesting''

Enron's support at the White House, he said of Mr. Hebert.

Mr. Lay said he had ``very possibly'' discussed issues

relating to the commission's authority over access to the

grid.

As to Mr. Hebert's job, Mr. Lay said he told the chairman

that ``the final decision on this was going to be the

president's, certainly not ours.''

Though the accounts of the discussion differ, that it took

place at all illustrates Enron's considerable influence in

Washington, especially at the commission, the agency

authorized to ensure fair prices in the nation's wholesale

electricity and natural gas markets, Enron's main business.

Mr. Lay has been one of Mr. Bush's largest campaign

contributors, and no other energy company gave more money to

Republican causes last year than Enron.

And it appears that Mr. Hebert may soon be replaced as the

commission's chairman, according to Vice President Dick

Cheney, the Bush administration's point man on energy policy.

Mr. Lay has weighed in on candidates for other commission

posts, supplying President Bush's chief personnel adviser

with a list of preferred candidates. One Florida utility

regulator who hoped for but did not receive an appointment as

a commissioner said he had been ``interviewed'' by Mr.

Lay.

Mr. Lay also had access to the team writing the White

House's energy report, which embraces several initiatives and

issues dear to Enron.

The report's recommendations include finding ways to give

the federal government more power over electricity

transmission networks, a longtime goal of the company that

was spelled out in a memorandum Mr. Lay discussed during a

30-minute meeting earlier this spring with Mr. Cheney.

Mr. Cheney's report includes much of what Mr. Lay advocated

during their meeting, documents show. Both men deny

discussing commission personnel issues during their talk. But

Mr. Lay had an unusual opportunity to make his case about

candidates in writing and in person to Mr. Bush's personnel

adviser, Clay Johnson. And when Mr. Bush picked nominees to

fill two vacant Republican slots on the five-member

commission, they both had the backing of Enron, as well as

other companies.

Mr. Lay is not shy about voicing his opinion or flexing his

political muscle. He has transformed the Houston-based Enron

from a sleepy natural-gas company into a $100 billion energy

giant with global reach, trading electricity in all corners

of the world and owning a multibillion-dollar power project

in India. He has also led the push to deregulate the nation's

electricity markets.

Senior Bush administration officials said they welcomed Mr.

Lay's input but did not always embrace it: President Bush

backed away from curbing carbon-dioxide emissions, an effort

supported by Enron, which had looked to trade emission rights

as part of its energy business.

``We'll make decisions based on what we think makes sound

public policy,'' Mr. Cheney said in an interview, not what

``Enron thinks.''

The Bush-Lay bond traces back to Mr. Bush's father and

involves a personal and philosophical affinity. Moreover,

Enron and its executives gave $2.4 million to federal

candidates in the last election, more than any other energy

company. While some of that went to Democrats, 72 percent

went to Republicans, according to an analysis of election

records by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonprofit

group.

``He's for a lot of things we're for,'' said Mr. Johnson.

But when it came to deciding on nominees for the

commission, Mr. Johnson said that Mr. Lay's views were not

that crucial. The two most important advisers, he said, were

Andrew Lundquist, the director of Mr. Cheney's energy task

force, and Pat Wood 3rd, the head of the Texas public utility

commission.

As governor, Mr. Bush named Mr. Wood to the utility

commission. This year, when the White House filled the two

Republican slots on the federal agency, Mr. Wood was the

first choice, Mr. Johnson said.

Consumer advocates and business executives praise Mr. Wood.

But Mr. Lay also had a role in promoting him. Shortly after

Mr. Bush was elected governor in 1994, Mr. Lay sent him a

letter endorsing Mr. Wood as the ``best qualified'' person

for the Texas commission.

In all, there are five seats on the commission, two held by

Republicans, two by Democrats and one held by a chairman who

serves at the pleasure of the president. Mr. Hebert, who

became a commissioner in 1997, was named chairman by Mr. Bush

in January.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's mandate to

ensure fair prices in wholesale electricity and natural gas

markets makes it crucial to sellers like Enron as well as

consumers.

The movement toward deregulation sometimes leaves the

commission caught in a tug of war: power marketers like Enron

are trying to break into markets and grids controlled by old-

line utilities, which operate under state regulation. The

commission's chairman has considerable latitude in setting

its agenda.

As part of its oversight of the wholesale electricity

markets, the commission ordered several companies to refund

what it considered excessively high prices this year in

California. One lesser offender named in the commission's

public filings--$3.2 million, of a total of $125 million--was

an Enron subsidiary in Oregon.

Enron owns few generating assets, but buys and sells

electricity in the market. Many of those transactions

resemble the complicated risk-shifting techniques used by

Wall Street for financial instruments.

Mr. Hebert, after he became chairman, initiated an

examination into the effects those techniques have on the

electricity markets. ``One of our problems is that we do not

have the expertise to truly unravel the complex arbitrage

activities of a company like Enron,'' he said, adding,

``we're trying to do it now, and we may have some results

soon.''

William L. Massey, one of the agency's two democratic

commissioners, said he supported the inquiry but had not been

aware of it--an indication of the chairman's ability to set

the commission's agenda.

Finally, the commission is trying to speed the pace of

electricity deregulation by opening up the nation's

transmission grid, much of which is owned by privately owned

utilities that enjoy retail monopolies. Some Enron officials

say the commission has been moving too slowly to open the

grid. They attribute some of the problem to utilities. But

they also fault Mr. Hebert.

``Hebert still has undeserved confidence in some of the

vertically integrated companies coming to the table and

dealing openly'' with transmission access issues, said

Richard S. Shapiro, an Enron senior vice president.

The utilities, however, maintain that they provide cheap

and reliable service for their customers. Washington

lobbyists for one Southern utility said that Enron was really

interested in focusing on the utility's big-business clients,

which under state regulation pay higher rates than

residential customers.

Since 1996, about half the states have moved to open their

retail markets to competition, and the commission has begun

to make it easier for outsiders to use the nation's

transmission grid. But the promise of cheaper rates has been

largely unfulfilled. So the push for more deregulation, in

which Enron has been a leader, has slowed, especially when

California's flawed program led to skyrocketing rates and

chaotic markets.

Mr. Hebert is a free-market conservative who favors

deregulation but also recognizes the importance of state's

rights. A former Mississippi regulator, he is a protege of

Trent Lott, the Senate Republican leader from Mississippi.

Mr. Hebert said Mr. Lott was instrumental in his nomination

to the commission in 1997 by President Clinton.

President Bush elevated Mr. Hebert to chairman on

Inauguration Day, a move Mr. Lay said he told the White House

he supported.

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, said that Mr.

Lott and Mr. Hebert had both been told that Mr. Hebert could

remain

chairman at least until the administration's nominees--Mr.

Wood and Nora Brownell, a Pennsylvania utility regulator--are

confirmed by the full Senate. The Senate energy committee

voted earlier this week to approve the two nominees, after a

hearing last week indicated strong support.

It is widely expected that President Bush will name Mr.

Wood to replace Mr. Hebert as chairman after the Senate acts.

In an interview for a forthcoming episode of ``Frontline,''

the PBS series, Mr. Cheney suggested as much. ``Pat Wood's

got to be the new chairman of the F.E.R.C., and he'll have to

address'' various problems in the electricity markets, he

said.

Mr. Hebert said that no one had told him he was being

replaced. If someone else is named chairman, Mr. Hebert can

remain a commissioner until the end of his term, which

expires in 2004.

It was a few weeks after President Bush made him chairman

Mr. Hebert said he spoke by telephone with Mr. Lay.

Mr. Lay told him that ``he and Enron would like to support

me as chairman, but we would have to agree on principles''

involving the commission's role in expanding electricity

competition, Mr. Hebert said of the conversation.

A senior commission official who was in Hebert's office

during the conversation said Mr. Hebert rebuffed Mr. Lay's

offer of a quid pro quo. The official said that he heard Mr.

Hebert's side of the conversation and then, after the call

ended, learned the rest from him.

Mr. Hebert said that he, too, backed competition but did

not think the commission had the legal authority to tell

states what to do in this area. Concerning the issue of

opening transmission access through the creation of regional

networks, Mr. Hebert supports a voluntary process while Enron

seeks a faster and more compulsory system.

Mr. Lay said that while he might have discussed issues

relating to the commission's authority concerning access to

the grid, ``there was never any intent'' to link that or any

other issue to Mr. Hebert's job status.

The commission is a quasijudicial agency, so decision-

makers like Mr. Hebert must avoid private discussions about

specific matters pending before the commission. Mr. Hebert

and Mr. Lay both said that line was not crossed, but Mr.

Hebert said he had never had such a blunt talk with an

energy-industry executive.

Mr. Lay added that his few recent conversations with Mr.

Hebert were nothing special. ``We had a lot of access during

the Clinton administration,'' he said.

And he said that while making political contributions

``probably helps'' to gain access to an official, he made

them ``because I'm supporting candidates I strongly believe

in.''

Last June, Enron executives were asked to make voluntary

donations to the company's political action committee. The

solicitation letter noted that the company faced a range of

governmental issues, including electricity deregulation.

This year, some people who sought but did not get

nominations to the commission said that Mr. Lay and Enron had

had a role in the process.

One was Joe Garcia, a former Florida utilities regulator

and prominent Cuban-American activist. He said he had been

``interviewed'' by a few Enron officials, including Mr. Lay,

who he said had not been as ``forceful or insistent'' as the

other Enron officials.

But in their conversation, Mr. Garcia said, Mr. Lay made

clear that he would be visiting the White House, adding that

``everyone knew of his relationship and his importance.''

Mr. Johnson, the White House personnel chief, could not

cite another company besides Enron that sent him a list of

preferred candidates for the commission, but he remembered

hearing the views of Tom Kuhn, who heads the utility industry

trade group, the Edison Electric Institute. Mr. Kuhn was a

classmate of Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bush at Yale.

As for his conversation with Mr. Garcia, Mr. Lay said he

was comfortable with his candidacy but ``I'm not sure what I

told him about my friends at the White House.''

This article is part of a joint reporting project with the

PBS series ``Frontline,'' which will broadcast a documentary

about California's energy crisis on June 5.

Mr. President, what are these schemes that were perpetrated on ratepayers in the West?

Get Shorty is a scheme that individuals may have read about in the paper, or maybe some individuals know from being in California or hearing parts of what happened in Washington State or Oregon. I thought it was the title of a movie. I did not know it was a clever marketing tool presented by a bunch of executives at an energy company to manipulate the prices so my ratepayers might pay more. I could not believe something like that would happen.

Another scheme that was part of the process is Load Shift, another way in which the individual consumer did not understand that some trading was going on with the price, and yet prices could be inflated and because, again, we had a shortage and had to go out and buy on the spot market, we were trapped at buying at that high rate.

There is another attempt to defraud consumers known as the Silver Peak Incident. Silver Peak refers to a major transmission line in California but is outlined in an internal Enron e-mail that was made public by the FERC investigation. It is also synonymous with a scheme that was concocted by the Enron chief trader of the West who has since pled guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit fraud, Mr. Tim Belden, and on May 25, 1999, Mr. Belden filed 2,900 megawatts of an offer to sell within the California PX, the transmission line that could carry only 17 megawatts of power.

So the California PX and ISO did, in fact, detect that there was an anomaly. They ended up raising the price 71 percent that day, and eventually Enron and the PX reached a settlement in which the company paid a $25,000 fine. It shows the kinds of problems that are in these various schemes, Fat Boy, also known as Icing Load, basically into realtime power markets. According to a smoking gun memo that Enron had issued on December 6 and December 8, Fat Boy was one of the most fundamental strategies used by traders. According to one trader, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book. It is now being used by other market participants.

I want to read to my colleagues how Enron's own attorney described Fat Boy, but first remember how the market worked. It was the job of the California system to balance the supply and demand within California's transmission, and that required market participants to submit schedules of how much power they planned ahead of time. Given that there are various fluctuations because of weather and the demand that consumers have, it was simply a fact of life that marketers and utilities were not able to forecast to the exact megawatt the precise amount that would be needed.

Thus, in order to ensure that the lights stayed on, the ISO would offer payments to utilities that would increase their generation in realtime in order to make sure that supply and demand matched up. So to take advantage of the situation, Enron would anticipate when the market was going to be short on supply. It would then submit a false day-ahead schedule loading the lines with generation it knew it had no intention of really using. That way, when it accessed the portion of power it put on the realtime grid, it would receive extra payments from the ISOs in keeping the lights on. That is right. By falsifying its day-ahead schedules, Enron received untold millions for pretending to keep the lights on in the West. I can assure my colleagues that is a very cruel joke to play on consumers in the West.

So what we have before us in the Domenici amendment is a failure to protect consumers in the repeal of PUHCA and in the continuation of not outlawing these very practices that Enron has deployed. What we want to do is take all these schemes and include them in an amendment that I will lay down tomorrow that basically bans market manipulation. Yes, I would like to see us adopt the Dayton amendment that keeps the 1935 law on the books. Because, yes, left alone, energy marketers have shown that even after 70-plus years, they can recreate the same types of market manipulation. So we need to have protections in place.

Round-trip trading is not the only thing that needs to be addressed in this bill in addition to PUHCA. What needs to be addressed, besides protecting the Public Utility Holding Company Act and keeping that on the books, and besides saying that round-trip trading is a problem, we also need to make sure these various other schemes, the Wheel Out scheme--I do not know who the marketing person was who thought of these themes. I am amazed--the Black Widow scheme, the Cuddly Bear scheme, the Red Congo scheme--people can see we are having a tough time getting all of these charts up here because there were so many schemes of manipulation, basically undertaken by a variety of individuals who thought this was a great idea to make money--the INC-ing scheme and the Non-Firm Export scheme.

The amendment I will lay down tomorrow says all of these manipulations, not just on day-trip trading but all of these practices are illegal; that the Senate will not put up with market

manipulation; that the Senate has seen, not just on the Democratic side of the aisle but the Republican side of the aisle--I want my Republican colleagues to join with us tomorrow and say that market manipulation is wrong--that it is wrong and we believe we need stronger consumer protections; that we think the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission should be given the powers to make sure we are protected from these schemes; that we have done our job from the Enron crisis, where we have learned that we need to do a better job on accounting practices; that we have learned that we need to do a better job on requirements of the SEC and, yes, we in the Senate understand that energy prices can be manipulated and we are going to do a better job of making sure the tools stay in place to protect consumers. That new enhancements to those tools prohibit these kinds of schemes from ever happening again.

As painful as this crisis has been for Washington State and for the West, this particular amendment I am offering is really about our next steps moving forward. It is about natural gas pricing. It is about the future manipulation that could happen if we do not put protections in place. It is about saying that we want to make sure, as we continue towards a diversified energy plan for our country, getting more natural gas from Alaska with a new pipeline, looking at renewable energy, looking at conservation, looking at all sorts of alternative fuels, planning for the hydrogen fuel economy, that while we are doing all of those things, we are going to make sure market manipulation does not take place. That is what is at stake with the amendments we are going to be voting on tomorrow.

Mine will not be the only amendment. As I have mentioned several times, Senator Dayton has a great amendment in which he says we should leave the Public Utility Holding Company Act in place. I am trying to stop these marketing schemes from being foiled on other States and other economies. I am trying to say the billion-plus that was lost in Washington State and the over $3 billion that was lost in California is economic havoc that should never happen again to another State in this country.

To do that, we have to pass the Cantwell amendment that says these market manipulations are outlawed. That is what we are going to try to do tomorrow. I hope my colleagues will take the time tonight to understand this.

I point out my colleagues have talked about this Energy bill and the various aspects of that Energy bill in a way that would leave most thinking these are simple issues and we should basically dispense with them quickly. As I said, $6 billion to the west coast economy--and that is just the costs of additional power that we have had to buy at higher rates; that is not the ancillary costs of other businesses who have had to shut down.

We have had a paper company in Everett, WA, threaten if we have one additional rate increase of even a couple percentages, they will probably have to shut down that facility. We have had aluminum plants throughout the State of Washington that had to shut down for periods of time. If we have another rate increase they could be shut down permanently. We are talking thousands of jobs. We have had other industries say they do not think they could survive another rate increase.

It is hard when we have challenges to not say we should have a rate increase. My response is, why can't we get out of these long-term contracts by Enron? Why can't we renegotiate what have been manipulated costs we in Washington have had to pay for? When I think of what has happened to Washington State, we are talking about more than $6 billion. We owe it to people to have a debate about these issues.

I plan to offer several other amendments. It is incredible we allow big companies such as Enron to lobby for and to support the nomination of these FERC commissioners. Why should a big company like Enron get to influence the administration on who should chair a regulatory entity whose job is to regulate that very entity that is pushing their nomination? I will have an amendment about that.

I think the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission which engages in 15 calls with Wall Street to tell them when and how they are going to make decisions on these contracts and whether they are just and reasonable. I don't see why we should have a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that spends its time telling Wall Street in advance whether they should try to settle manipulated contracts out of court with clients. I don't think that is their job.

We ought to have more protection on cost-based pricing than we have. We will have other amendments that try to address this issue about what we do about the fact that this voluminous report by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission says all these contracts have been manipulated. Yet they fail to do nothing about it when the Federal Power Act says it is the commission's job to do something about unjust and unreasonable rates. That is what the Federal statute gave the authority to FERC to do, to make sure on wholesale rates the consumer was not gouged with unjust and unreasonable rates.

Now we have a Federal entity saying, yes, they certainly are manipulated contracts. These schemes are unbelievable, but we are not going to do anything as regulators to help the ratepayers out of this situation. We will have an amendment addressing the failure of FERC to do anything about these manipulated contracts.

Some of my other colleagues will have amendments dealing with this section. I don't know whether Senator Feinstein will offer her amendment on derivatives but, again, that is another loophole Enron walked itself through by coming to Congress and lobbying for an exemption to the Futures Commodities Trading Act. They said online trades ought to be exempt. That was very smart of them to get that loophole. Why? Because then all online trading, that some of these schemes are the names for, was completed online where prices were manipulated in trades, inflated, and consumers ended up paying the higher price.

They get the derivatives loophole in the futures commodity. We say in America you can trade futures on corn and a variety of other agriculture products but you have to have open books. You have to have transparency. You have to show what you are actually doing so that if there is some sort of manipulation of the market you can come in and see what that manipulation is, a regulator can investigate.

But no, this body, several years ago, probably unknowing as to the unbelievable impact, said, let's go ahead and give them this exemption.

We found that a loophole big enough to drive a truck through--I should say big enough to drive billions of dollars through; that gouged consumers. I hope Senator Feinstein will offer her derivatives amendment, which I cosponsor, to close that loophole.

Some of my colleagues say, we voted on that already; it failed. I ask my colleagues, we voted on that amendment before we knew of all these schemes about manipulation. Now we know these schemes and manipulation have happened and we are not going to try to do something to close those loopholes? It is something we need to bring front and center to the American people, demonstrating we here are doing our job. We are doing enough to get something done.

I have letters from various constituents through the West who chronicled events that have happened to them, individuals who have either sent E-mails, letters or various documentations about the problems they have seen in the energy market. The various costs they have endured paying for additional electricity, which then meant they had to make other choices. I know people that not only were part of that 44 percent increase in disconnect rates. People who had to make other choices about education, about vacations, including a sad story from a woman who could not even send her daughter to the prom because she could not afford to buy a dress because that money went to their energy bill instead.

What it comes down to tomorrow is whether we are going to allow this manipulation of Fat Boy, Get Shorty, Ricochet, Death Star, which the Domenici amendment is silent on. Whether we are going to take a vote to say that market manipulation is wrong.

What are we going to say to ratepayers who had to pay 88 percent increases, 61 percent increases, 54 percent

increases, 71 percent increases, 43 percent increases? Again, these aren't increases for 1 year, these are increases that my ratepayers are stuck with. They are stuck with them because they signed an Enron contract and because we have a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that basically says: Yes, they have been manipulated, but we don't care, you still have to pay that rate.

I do not want this to happen to other parts of the country. I don't want to see economies like the Northwest economy, or the west coast economy, which is a critical part of our Nation's economy, suffer the consequences of manipulation of energy prices. The American people, to whom I have to answer when I go home to Washington State, or in other parts of the country if I travel, say to me: How come I am stuck with an 88 percent rate increase? How come I am stuck with a 61 percent rate increase? How come I am losing my job because our company can't afford the high electricity costs? or, How come my school district is paying high electricity rates and we have to pay a higher tuition? How come our school district is asking for a levy because we have higher electricity rates? People are not even taking action on giving us relief.

We will come back at this body on what we should do about past bad actions. But what we need to do tomorrow on the Cantwell market manipulation amendment is say that market manipulation of energy prices is wrong and that an energy title that fails to address these issues is not satisfactory.

I could take the last few minutes I have tonight, of my 1 hour, and tell you six or seven things that are also wrong with the Domenici electricity title. There are lots of schemes in there that run towards a market-based system on regional transmission organization and standard market design that I know my colleagues from the South and parts of the West probably are not too anxious to hear about, aren't too excited that I put in play. The Domenici amendment is a step closer to that.

Why do they want more of a free market? Because they want to see having that free market without the regulatory aspects of the Public Utility Holding Company Act, or having oversight of mergers, or having these kinds of hammers making sure no manipulation takes place. They want to see how much further prices can be manipulated. They want to see how they can have a free rein on what really is a needed utility for the American people.

I think, regarding those RTO and standard market design schemes that are also part of the Domenici underlying amendment, it is the absolutely wrong time to be talking about moving towards more change. We have just had this crisis. My State is still paying for this crisis. We are going to still be paying for it for years.

I understand the President is coming to the Northwest in August. I hope the President has an answer for why his administration, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, have not dealt with this issue. I hope he has an answer, to say to ratepayers why we should continue to be gouged on this issue; why we in the West, even though contracts have been manipulated, still have to pay those prices.

I would say to him: Mr. President, Washington State has a bright future. It still has a software economy. It still has an aerospace industry. Yes, it has been challenged, but it is still strong. We have a burgeoning biotech industry. We have a huge trade community. We have a vibrant, diverse agricultural economy throughout our State. But none of those can continue to exist with exorbitant energy prices that have been manipulated.

I hope when he comes to Washington State, he has an answer. I can tell you right now, that answer will not be well received if it is about just creating more supply. We are all for creating more supply in Washington State, and we are all for diversifying, but we are not for market manipulation.

We have to think through these other aspects of the Domenici amendment on RTOs, regional transmission organizations, standard market design and the other elements that really do call into question our ability to regulate the cost of electricity, for which the American people count on us. I hate to think, after 70 years of having a similar pyramid scheme push us into having the Public Utility Holding Company Act, that somehow this body will not get the message. Instead of just dealing with this crisis that we have dealt with in electricity--maybe not next year, maybe not in 5 years, but 7 years down the road--we end up having a similar crisis with natural gas, and, instead of just affecting the west coast and Washington ratepayers, it impacts the whole country.

Fair energy prices are part of having a healthy economy. Affordable energy prices help to continue to stimulate economic growth. But manipulated energy prices are not just. They are not reasonable. They are not in the public interest. This body ought to take strong action against them.

I know my colleagues all care about this issue. We wanted to do the right thing on securities law. We wanted to do the right thing on accounting law. It is time, with the Cantwell amendment tomorrow, to do the right thing on making sure that energy market manipulation is prevented and does not happen again.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I object.

Mr. President, I object.

I object, Mr. President.

I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs.

While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder.

A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband.

Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents.

In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom.

In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia.

Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women.

My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation.

The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence.

The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved.

Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language.

Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national.

Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country

themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship.

Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history.

Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home.

Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men.

IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation.

It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done.

My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms.

My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well.

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

I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs.

While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder.

A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband.

Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents.

In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom.

In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia.

Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women.

My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation.

The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence.

The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved.

Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language.

Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national.

Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country

themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship.

Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history.

Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home.

Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men.

IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation.

It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done.

My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms.

My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my friend and colleague Senator Murray, as well as the vice chairman of the Indian Affairs Committee Senator Inouye, that provides an equitable settlement to the Spokane Tribe of Indians. This bill addresses the decision of the Federal Government to take lands belonging to the tribe in order to construct the Grand Coulee Dam on the Columbia River.

For more than half a century, the Grand Coulee Project has made an extraordinary contribution to this Nation. It helped pull the economy out of the Great Depression. It provided the electricity that produced aluminum required for airplanes and weapons that ensured our national security. The project continues to produce enormous revenues for the United States, it is a key component of the agricultural economy in eastern Washington, and plays a pivotal role in the electric systems serving the entire western United States.

However, these benefits have come at a direct cost to tribal property that became inundated when the U.S. Government built the Grand Coulee Dam. Before dam construction, the free flowing Columbia River supported robust and plentiful salmon runs and provided for virtually all of the subsistence needs of the Spokane Tribe. After construction, the Columbia and its Spokane river tributary flooded tribal communities, schools, and roads, and the remaining stagnant water continues to erode reservation lands today.

The legislation Senators Inouye, Murray, and I are introducing today is similar to P.L. 103-436, which was enacted in 1994 to provide the neighboring Confederated Colville Tribes. This bill would provide the Spokane Tribe of Indians' with compensation that is directly proportional to the settlement afforded the Colville Tribes. Specifically, the Spokane Tribe would receive 39.4 percent of the past and future compensation awarded the Colville Tribes pursuant to the 1994 legislation. This percentage is based on the proportion of tribal lands impacted after the Federal Government built the Grand Coulee Project.

The United States has a trust responsibility to maintain and protect the integrity of all tribal lands within its borders. When Federal actions physically or economically impact harm, our Nation has a legal responsibility to address and compensate the damaged parties. Unfortunately, despite countless efforts, half a century has passed without justice to the Spokane people.

The time has come for the Federal Government to finally meet is fiduciary responsibility for converting the Spokane tribe's resources to its own benefit. Senators Inouye, Murray, and I believe that the legislation we are proposing today will finally bring a fair and honorable closure to these matters. We are pleased to see similar bipartisan legislation was introduced earlier this year in the U.S. House of Representatives.

I look forward to working with the Indian Affairs Committee and my Senate colleagues as this legislation proceeds through the Congress.

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

There being no obligation, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: