Floor Statements

Mr. President, of course, the debate throughout the day has been about the wise use of taxpayers' money. Yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, there was an article entitled ``USAID Defends Secret Bids to Rebuild Iraq.'' At the same time, there was an article in the Washington Post entitled ``Contracts to Rebuild Iraq Go to Chosen Few.'' ``No Bidding War on Contracts in Iraq.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that these two articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, suffice it to say, the Senate missed an opportunity tonight to stand up for openness and competition in contracting and to make sure there was an opportunity to spend prudently on the effort to rebuild Iraq. It seems to me that too much taxpayers' money is at stake in rebuilding Iraq to allow Federal officials to use a secret process to handpick companies to do this work. There ought to be an open and full and competitive process to ensure the prices charged are reasonable and the contractors selected are the most qualified.

Senator Collins of Maine and I worked for 48 hours on a bipartisan basis to make it possible to offer an amendment that would ensure that there be real openness in contracting and that there be an effort to make sure that the billions of dollars that are going to be spent rebuilding Iraq be part of a contract process that is governed by competitive bid.

It is a very simple proposition. We ought to make sure it is out in the open, it is transparent, that the public can see what is going on, and that contracts should not just go to a handful who have power and influence, particularly in this city.

Unfortunately, because of an objection, that amendment was not added tonight. I come to the floor to say that I intend to keep coming back until the Senate stands up for openness in Government contracting and competitive bidding so that the taxpayers' money is used well.

That is not what is happening with $1.7 billion worth of contracts for rebuilding highways and bridges and rehabilitating Iraq's school system. Recently, the U.S. Agency for International Development handpicked a selective group of companies to participate in a secret bidding process for awarding four separate contracts totaling $1.7 billion. That is just one example of what is ahead with respect to how taxpayers' money is going to be used.

In the past, the General Accounting Office has been very critical of this kind of approach. The General Accounting Office has found that contractors had not done enough to contain costs on projects involving engineering support in areas where the military was involved.

According to a September 2000 report by the General Accounting Office, Federal officials said:

Frequently, they have had accepted the level of services

the contract provided without questioning whether they could

be provided more efficiently and more frequently and at lower

cost.

What could be more important for this Senate to stand up for? What could be more important than to make these contracts involving billions of dollars be let in a way that is efficient and open?

The current plan to select contractors for reconstruction work in Iraq without competitive bidding creates the potential for more of the same, more of the same where noncompetitive contracting work is conducted by the Federal Government and we have a repeat of the overpriced contracts and less acceptable services that come about when contracting is not competitive.

Given the enormous sums of taxpayer money that will be involved, there ought to be competitive bidding across the board. Certainly there ought to be competitive bidding unless someone shows a compelling national security reason to do otherwise. I am of the view that if Federal agencies are not going to use full and open competition, at a minimum they ought to have the burden of demonstrating why competition is not the proper way to avoid the contracts.

Senator Collins and I wanted, tonight, with the very helpful counsel of Senator Clinton of New York, who also worked in this area, to offer an amendment to require the Federal agencies to make public the documents used to justify their decision to waive the normal requirements for open and fully competitive bidding. Think about that proposition. Heaven forbid we actually make public the documents that describe why we are not having competitive bidding. That strikes me as a very modest step when you are talking about billions of dollars' worth of taxpayer money.

But because there was an objection tonight, now we are not going to have the refusal to go forward with competitive bidding even made public. It seems to me the way to make sure the taxpayers get the best value for their money and we have companies that compete for this work is to make sure that the standards for exempting contracts from competition are strict and rigorous and are designed to protect the needs of taxpayers and the national security.

Our amendment would have required agencies to make the justification and approval documents it used, if you were to have a contract exempt, public. And it would ensure we have full and vigorous competition and would have required other Federal agencies to make their justifications public before they entered into any contracts to rebuild Iraq.

I don't think the Senate wants to sit by and see these kinds of articles in our newspapers day after day: USAID Defends Secret Bids to Rebuild Iraq. Contracts to Rebuild Iraq Go To Chosen Few.

Unless we have the Wyden-Collins bipartisan amendment to open up this process, to promote competition, to have full disclosure, we are going to have articles like this in our newspapers day after day after day. It is going to contribute to the cynicism and frustration that taxpayers have in this country with respect to how their money will be used. It will be a long year. We are going to see these articles again and again.

I intend to come back to the Senate and stay at this. I wanted to make sure we would have a bipartisan amendment on this effort and worked very closely with the bipartisan leadership throughout the day. I thought we were there. I thought we had this amendment in a fashion acceptable to both sides. It is very regrettable it has not been accepted. I will continue to work with my colleagues. The taxpayers of this country ought to be angry about this kind of process used to let contracts.

Certainly, if there is a national security reason or some sort of contract that requires an expedited arrangement, that needs to be treated in a way that protects our national security. That is not what is going on here. What we are seeing is businesses in Missouri, Oregon, Maine, and across the country not being part of the privileged circle. A lot of businesses are going to be angry about this because they are not part of that hand-picked elite that will have a chance to get the contracts. What is going on now is bad for business, it is bad for competition, it is bad for taxpayers, and I think it is bad for national security. I don't think we will get the most for our money if we continue to have the contracts, as the papers say, go to a chosen few.

The Senate made a mistake. It is particularly unfortunate because two Senators worked for the last 48 hours in a bipartisan way to try to prevent the things we have seen in the last few days from happening again and again. It will happen again and again. That is why I intend to come back to the Senate. It is unfortunate there was an objection tonight to our bipartisan legislation.

I look forward to seeing the Senate in the days ahead stand up again on a bipartisan basis for a process that is open, a process that promotes competition, that is good for taxpayers, good for business, and good for our country.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

SA 435. Mr. STEVENS proposed an amendment to the bill S. 762, making supplemental appropriations to support Department of Defense operations in Iraq, Department of Homeland Security, and Related Efforts for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2003, and for other purposes; as follows:

Section 3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by

adding at the end the following new subsection:

``(d) The National Debt Ceiling of the United States shall

be increased by the total amount of funds appropriated by Act

of Congress for the Department of Defense, Department of

Homeland Security or any other Agency of government to

prosecute the war against terrorism, the war in Afghanistan,

the war in Iraq, since September 11, 2001.

Mr. President, I speak today with a profound sense of loss. A brave, young soldier from my home State of Oregon, Brandon S. Tobler, was killed in Iraq. Oregon's first war fatality, Army Reserve SP Brandon Tobler, who was only 19, lost his life in a Humvee accident during a sand storm. I have the last correspondence Brandon's parents received from their son, an e-mail sent just 2 weeks prior to his death on March 22, 2003.

Brandon was the only son of Leon and Gail Tobler of Portland. He grew up there and joined the military to help pay for college. He was in a convoy headed to Baghdad providing engineering support to the combat troops. Private Tobler's death reminds us that a soldier doesn't have to be on the combat line to face tremendous danger and possible death. His letter reminds of the bravery of each and every person who puts on a uniform for the United States. Private Tobler will be laid to rest in the Willamette National Cemetery in Portland, OR, on April 3, 2003.

I ask unanimous consent that Brandon's letter be printed in the Record.

Madam President, in the early stages of the conflict with

Iraq, my State of Oregon is already mourning, already forced to count the cost of this war in real and human terms.

This morning I expressed my condolences to the families and friends of all of those who have given their lives in this war, but I particularly recognize the brave soldiers being mourned today by the people of Oregon. Army Reserve Specialist Brandon Tobler, who was only 19, lost his life in a humvee accident during a sandstorm. Brandon was the only son of Leo and Gail Tobler of Portland. He grew up there and joined the military to help pay for college. He was in a convoy headed to Baghdad providing engineering support to the combat troops. Private Tobler's death reminds us that a soldier doesn't have to be on the combat line to face tremendous danger and possible death.

It reminds us how brave each and every person who puts on a uniform for the United States must be regardless of their particular assignment.

Air National Guard MAJ Gregory Stone was a 20-year veteran of military service. He was killed in the grenade attack at the base of the 101st Airborne in Kuwait. He leaves behind two young sons today, Evan and Joshua, as well as his mother in Ontario--who I just spoke with--and others across our State who loved him dearly. Major Stone graduated from Oregon State University, and from Benson High School in my hometown of Portland. He died far from the front lines but, again, called to sacrifice in war.

Army SGT Donald Walters is now missing in action after his convoy was ambushed in Southern Iraq. His wife and kids are in Missouri. His parents, Norman and Arlene, are in Salem, OR, awaiting word on his safety. Sergeant Walters comes from a family with a rich tradition of service across the military, including the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. He is a specialist in decontamination. His convoy was moving to support troops in battle when they took a wrong turn into terrible circumstances. The people of Oregon now are praying for his family and his friends. I join with all of them in hoping for his safe return.

Each of these very brave Oregonians, in my view, is an example of the best of the American spirit. We mourn the deaths of those killed. We pray for the safe return of Sergeant Walters and, above all, we give thanks for all of those living as well, who still serve so bravely in this time of war.

Madam President, the special people who are serving our country cross generations, and they represent every ethnic group. They serve in a wide variety of capacities. Some come from Reserve units or the National Guard. Others are in the permanent services. They are members of very different fighting forces--Army, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, and Air Force. Amidst all of this diversity, there is so much that they share--especially a deep love for our country, and a common willingness to risk their lives for the lives of others.

Together, they stand between the citizens of our Nation and those who would do America harm. They all know that at any time they could be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice. Yet, each day, they go in and put their uniform on and charge into harm's way for all of our sakes.

Throughout American history, members of our military have made the sacrifices that allow our great Republic to survive. Today, as the pictures of this war play out on television screens across the Nation, people in this country can see as never before just what a war requires of men and women who fight on behalf of all of us. As we watch, it is important to remember these images are not created in Hollywood. They are the actions of real human beings. The soldiers are real people, loved by countless Americans here at home who worry every single hour for their safety, and mourn them when they are lost.

I will close today by expressing my gratitude to all of the Americans who serve our great Nation, and take special time today to reflect on the contributions of the Oregonians we have lost. Our concern for the missing people of this country today is great. The people I represent at home in Oregon offer their prayers every day for the success of the mission of those who serve and for their safe and speedy return.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR.

For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the area.

Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR, to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles, thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive.

This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 514, in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, I rise today, with my friend and colleague Senator Smith of Oregon, to introduce legislation to improve the management of and recreational access to the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area in Douglas County, OR.

For the small, rural, coastal community of Winchester Bay in Douglas County, OR, this piece of legislation is critical. Hit first in the early 90's with a steep downturn in the timber economy, closely followed by a near shut-down of the fishing industry, this community found itself on the brink of economic ruin. The final blow came in March of 2000 when the major employer, International Paper, closed its paper mill, putting 300 residents out of work and sending an economic shockwave through the community that impacted the city, the school district, the hospital district, and literally every resident in the area.

Yet, since that time, Winchester Bay, OR has adopted a ``never give up'' attitude, changed its long term outlook, and focused its efforts on developing a thriving tourist industry. The bill I introduce today directs the Secretary of the Interior to convey approximately 68.5 acres from the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, in Douglas County, OR, to Douglas County to be managed for open space and for recreational purposes. The acreage is located just west of tourist and recreational area developments already owned and run by Douglas County. The County will use the land to provide a staging area for off-highway vehicles, thereby improving management of the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. The land transfer also facilitates the policing of unlawful camping and parking along Salmon Harbor Drive and adjacent areas. This land transfer will improve tourism on Oregon's economically challenged South Coast, as well as improve public safety and reduce traffic congestion along Salmon Harbor Drive.

This legislation is supported by the entire Oregon delegation. It is also supported by the BLM, Douglas County Commissioners, and the community of Winchester Bay. An identical bill was introduced in the last Congress by Representative DeFazio, though the 107th Congress ended before both houses could pass it. Representative DeFazio reintroduced this land transfer legislation in the 108th Congress, H.R. 514, in the House of Representatives.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Digital Consumer Right To Know Act. The thrust of this bill is quite simple. Digital media companies are racing to develop technologies to combat piracy. Some of these anti-piracy measures could have the effect of restricting lawful, legitimate consumer uses as well as unlawful copying. My bill says that if digital content is released in a form that prevents or limits reasonable consumers uses, consumers have a right to be told in advance.

The shift from analog to digital technologies carries many potential benefits for all concerned--for technology companies, for producers of music, video, and other content, and above all, for consumers. Digital technologies, together with the rise of the Internet, promise to expand exponentially the possibilities for circulating, marketing, manipulating, and using creative works. There is so much more you can do, and so many fertile fields for innovation.

The shift to digital, however, also carries twin risks. The first, and the one on which Congress has focused most of its attention to date, is the risk of piracy. Digital technologies can greatly facilitate unlawful copying and distribution. This is a real problem, because people and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated. America's information-based economy depends on it.

The second, closely related risk is that, in combating piracy, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. In the name of anti-piracy

protections, legitimate consumer uses could be stifled. Encryption or other ``digital rights management'', DRM, schemes could be employed that restrict consumers' ability to take full advantage of the potential of the new digital technologies. In the end, it's not inconceivable that digital media could be more restricted and less flexible than other copyrighted items--an ironic result for a technology that was supposed to represent a great step forward for consumers.

The bill I am introducing today focuses on this second risk. Significantly, it would not in any way dictate to content companies what types of copy protection or DRM schemes may or may not be used. Instead, it would ensure that consumers are fully informed of any impact on their ability to use and manipulate the content they buy.

Advance notice of technology-based use limitations is a matter of basic fairness. Consumers have developed a number of legitimate expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate content, and are likely to develop new expectations as technology develops. For example, consumers increasingly expect to be able to shift legally purchased content between different devices--to access it on their computers, or in their cars, or using portable devices like MP3 players. They should be told in advance if these expectations won't be met, so that they can factor this information into their purchasing decisions. Consumers should know what they are getting or not getting.

In addition, I believe that imposing this kind of notice requirement will help promote the development of solutions that strike an appropriate and acceptable balance between protecting against piracy and preserving utility and flexibility for consumers. Overly restrictive approaches would require disclosures that content providers could find embarrassing, and consumers could be alienated by measures that don't seem to respect the importance of user flexibility. In short, full disclosure would strengthen the market-based incentive to avoid technologies that are too restrictive of consumer flexibility.

My bill would also make a clear statement that Congress expects that there will be competition in the retail distribution of copyrighted digital content. This shouldn't be controversial: today, compact discs, books, and movie videos are distributed via many competing retail stores. They also often face competition with stores selling used content, and with rentals and libraries. But what if new DRM technologies permit copyright holders to limit or prevent the ability of unaffiliated entities to sell or distribute content on a secondhand basis? Could the copyright holder sharply reduce competition at the distribution level, and thus increase its market power? My legislation addresses this risk by expressing the sense of the Congress that it is important to retain competition among distribution channels for digital information and entertainment content.

As the debate over digital copyright issues continues, I intend to listen to all sides. This country needs balanced approaches that respect the interests of copyright holders and consumers alike. But the bill I introduce today is a significant step that Congress could take now that would protect consumers of digital content and promote market- based solutions, all without rewriting any copyright laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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

Mr. President, today I am introducing the Digital Consumer Right To Know Act. The thrust of this bill is quite simple. Digital media companies are racing to develop technologies to combat piracy. Some of these anti-piracy measures could have the effect of restricting lawful, legitimate consumer uses as well as unlawful copying. My bill says that if digital content is released in a form that prevents or limits reasonable consumers uses, consumers have a right to be told in advance.

The shift from analog to digital technologies carries many potential benefits for all concerned--for technology companies, for producers of music, video, and other content, and above all, for consumers. Digital technologies, together with the rise of the Internet, promise to expand exponentially the possibilities for circulating, marketing, manipulating, and using creative works. There is so much more you can do, and so many fertile fields for innovation.

The shift to digital, however, also carries twin risks. The first, and the one on which Congress has focused most of its attention to date, is the risk of piracy. Digital technologies can greatly facilitate unlawful copying and distribution. This is a real problem, because people and companies that create copyrighted works must be fairly compensated. America's information-based economy depends on it.

The second, closely related risk is that, in combating piracy, the baby will get thrown out with the bathwater. In the name of anti-piracy

protections, legitimate consumer uses could be stifled. Encryption or other ``digital rights management'', DRM, schemes could be employed that restrict consumers' ability to take full advantage of the potential of the new digital technologies. In the end, it's not inconceivable that digital media could be more restricted and less flexible than other copyrighted items--an ironic result for a technology that was supposed to represent a great step forward for consumers.

The bill I am introducing today focuses on this second risk. Significantly, it would not in any way dictate to content companies what types of copy protection or DRM schemes may or may not be used. Instead, it would ensure that consumers are fully informed of any impact on their ability to use and manipulate the content they buy.

Advance notice of technology-based use limitations is a matter of basic fairness. Consumers have developed a number of legitimate expectations concerning how they may use and manipulate content, and are likely to develop new expectations as technology develops. For example, consumers increasingly expect to be able to shift legally purchased content between different devices--to access it on their computers, or in their cars, or using portable devices like MP3 players. They should be told in advance if these expectations won't be met, so that they can factor this information into their purchasing decisions. Consumers should know what they are getting or not getting.

In addition, I believe that imposing this kind of notice requirement will help promote the development of solutions that strike an appropriate and acceptable balance between protecting against piracy and preserving utility and flexibility for consumers. Overly restrictive approaches would require disclosures that content providers could find embarrassing, and consumers could be alienated by measures that don't seem to respect the importance of user flexibility. In short, full disclosure would strengthen the market-based incentive to avoid technologies that are too restrictive of consumer flexibility.

My bill would also make a clear statement that Congress expects that there will be competition in the retail distribution of copyrighted digital content. This shouldn't be controversial: today, compact discs, books, and movie videos are distributed via many competing retail stores. They also often face competition with stores selling used content, and with rentals and libraries. But what if new DRM technologies permit copyright holders to limit or prevent the ability of unaffiliated entities to sell or distribute content on a secondhand basis? Could the copyright holder sharply reduce competition at the distribution level, and thus increase its market power? My legislation addresses this risk by expressing the sense of the Congress that it is important to retain competition among distribution channels for digital information and entertainment content.

As the debate over digital copyright issues continues, I intend to listen to all sides. This country needs balanced approaches that respect the interests of copyright holders and consumers alike. But the bill I introduce today is a significant step that Congress could take now that would protect consumers of digital content and promote market- based solutions, all without rewriting any copyright laws. I urge my colleagues to join me in this effort.

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

Very briefly, amendment No. 328 is a bipartisan amendment that Senator Kyl and I have cosponsored with Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and others. It deals with the national fire plan. Suffice it to say, Senators know that the West over the last few summers has just been an inferno. We expect another very hot summer. This legislation is a bipartisan initiative which would allow us to set aside additional funds for forest restoration, hazardous fuels reduction and fire research, and real on-the-ground collaboration with States and localities to help them improve their environment and protect against catastrophic fire. It is backed by the timber industry and a host of environmental groups. I see my colleague from Arizona on the floor as well.

It is a bipartisan amendment on which Western Senators cooperated. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I cannot allow the Senate to proceed with Mr. Kelliher's nomination to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission today or anytime soon.

This is a position of enormous importance to my constituents in Oregon who have had their energy prices soar through the roof during the past few years while the Commission has failed to serve as an effective watchdog over energy markets.

In the limited time I was able to question Mr. Kelliher at his confirmation hearing, he demonstrated little understanding of the impact on the Northwest of the manipulation of west coast spot markets by Enron using the various strategies described in the Enron memos. These strategies have had a devastating impact on Northwest energy consumers and on long-term contracts that the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and many other Northwest utilities subsequently were induced to sign in order to protect themselves from the volatility of the manipulated spot markets. In response to my question about whether the Enron memos provided grounds to get out from overpriced contracts, Mr. Kelliher states: ``As a legal matter, I do not know sir. I thought those memos were designed to manipulate spot markets.''

To date, there has been a total failure on the part of the Commission to make any kind of connection between the manipulation of spot markets and the impact on long-term contracts that have raised rates for Northwest ratepayers. In fact, the Commission currently appears to be pursuing two completely different standards for when ratepayers may be entitled to refunds for manipulation of spot markets as compared to when overpriced, long-term contracts that were a direct result of that manipulation can be voided or reformed. The net effect could be that Northwest ratepayers could be struck in long-term, overpriced contracts even if the rates in those contracts are not considered just and reasonable according to FERC's own standards.

What is also of concern to me is that there are a number of critical issues to Northwest energy consumers that will be coming before the Commission in the next several weeks. These include Commission decisions on filings by the Bonneville Power Administration and other Northwest utilities for relief from contracts with Enron and other energy traders, enforcement cases against the marketers accused of manipulating west coast energy markets and the Commission's proposal to create a one-size-fits-all standard market design for transmission systems that would be ill-suited to our region's transmission system and could create new opportunities for manipulation of Northwest energy markets. With these critical issues coming before the Commission, the Northwest needs to be assured our region's interests will be fully and carefully considered.

Mr. Kelliher has not convinced me he fully understands the impact of manipulation of west coast energy markets on Northwest ratepayers or the problems the Commission's standard market design proposal could create for the Northwest electric power grid. For these reasons, I would object to a unanimous consent request for the Senate to take up Mr. Kelliher's nomination until my concerns can be addressed.

Mr. President, over a year ago the greed of some senior executives at the Enron corporation finally caught up with them. Enron's financial house of cards began to tumble, and along with it went the pensions and retirement dreams of thousands of employees and investors. Among the employees whose pensions were crushed in Enron's accounting avalanche were nearly all of Portland General Electric, or PGE's 2,700 employees in Oregon.

Enron took over PGE in June of 1997, and two years later merged the PGE employee 401(k) retirement plan into a single plan. That plan allowed employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their income, with the company matching in Enron stock. When Enron took over PGE in 1997, PGE's stock was trading at $27 a share; three years after the merger, Enron stock was trading at $85 a share, enticing employees to invest 100 percent of their 401(k) money in Enron stock.

Enron's stock had begun to slide in August 2001, and it was not until October that real panic set in. At that time the captains of the Enron ship knew it was sinking. In an effort to prevent a massive stock sell- off, senior executives on the deck locked workers in the boiler room, preventing them from selling off 401(k) shares while they dumped their own. By the time the pension lockdown ended, an Enron share was worth less than ten dollars. In early December, Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Earlier this year Congress enacted significant corporate accountability legislation so that executives and accountants can no longer use certified financial statements to play a game of financial hide-and-seek. But little was done for the workers who were locked in the boiler room. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Catch-Up Retirement Savings Act,'' is to give those PGE employees who were harmed by the greed of Enron executives the opportunity to catch-up on some of their lost retirement. My bill does two things to help workers. First, it allows employees to triple the deductible amount they may otherwise contribute to an IRA, and second, it gives employees a 50 percent tax credit on the amount they contribute to their IRA. The tax incentives would be available for five years to employees whose employer filed for bankruptcy and who was the subject of an indictment or conviction resulting from business transactions related to such case, and whose employer matched at least 50 percent of the employee's contributions to the pension plan.

No act of Congress can ever respond fully to the egregious harm that has been caused to thousands of Oregonians by the collapse of Enron. But I believe that something must be done to help recoup some of the lost pension savings. The ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement Savings Act'' is a small but important step that Congress should take to help employees to begin to catch-up on their retirement savings.

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

Mr. President, over a year ago the greed of some senior executives at the Enron corporation finally caught up with them. Enron's financial house of cards began to tumble, and along with it went the pensions and retirement dreams of thousands of employees and investors. Among the employees whose pensions were crushed in Enron's accounting avalanche were nearly all of Portland General Electric, or PGE's 2,700 employees in Oregon.

Enron took over PGE in June of 1997, and two years later merged the PGE employee 401(k) retirement plan into a single plan. That plan allowed employees to contribute up to 15 percent of their income, with the company matching in Enron stock. When Enron took over PGE in 1997, PGE's stock was trading at $27 a share; three years after the merger, Enron stock was trading at $85 a share, enticing employees to invest 100 percent of their 401(k) money in Enron stock.

Enron's stock had begun to slide in August 2001, and it was not until October that real panic set in. At that time the captains of the Enron ship knew it was sinking. In an effort to prevent a massive stock sell- off, senior executives on the deck locked workers in the boiler room, preventing them from selling off 401(k) shares while they dumped their own. By the time the pension lockdown ended, an Enron share was worth less than ten dollars. In early December, Enron filed for bankruptcy.

Earlier this year Congress enacted significant corporate accountability legislation so that executives and accountants can no longer use certified financial statements to play a game of financial hide-and-seek. But little was done for the workers who were locked in the boiler room. The purpose of the legislation I am introducing today, the ``Catch-Up Retirement Savings Act,'' is to give those PGE employees who were harmed by the greed of Enron executives the opportunity to catch-up on some of their lost retirement. My bill does two things to help workers. First, it allows employees to triple the deductible amount they may otherwise contribute to an IRA, and second, it gives employees a 50 percent tax credit on the amount they contribute to their IRA. The tax incentives would be available for five years to employees whose employer filed for bankruptcy and who was the subject of an indictment or conviction resulting from business transactions related to such case, and whose employer matched at least 50 percent of the employee's contributions to the pension plan.

No act of Congress can ever respond fully to the egregious harm that has been caused to thousands of Oregonians by the collapse of Enron. But I believe that something must be done to help recoup some of the lost pension savings. The ``Catch-Up Lost Retirement Savings Act'' is a small but important step that Congress should take to help employees to begin to catch-up on their retirement savings.

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

Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the McLoughlin House Preservation Act.

Dr. John McLoughlin, a powerful 6'4" man, is known, officially and fondly, as the ``Father of Oregon.'' His compassion played a critical role in the settling of the Northwest by Oregon Trail pioneers. Dr. McLoughlin's generosity to these early pioneers who arrived in the Oregon Territory after their incredible five month journey sick, hungry and without provisions was often the difference between survival and failure during their first winter.

This bill is a testimony to the hard work that one community can achieve. Preservation of the McLoughlin House and the nearby Barclay House, located in Oregon City, Oregon, is important to the cultural identity of Oregon. This bill would make them part of the Fort Vancouver National Park Service administrative site, thereby highlighting the interwoven connection between Fort Vancouver, the fur trade and the beginnings of the Oregon Territory.

Dr. McLoughlin first came to the Northwest in 1824, arriving at Fort George, now called Astoria, Oregon, to establish a supply center for the Hudson's Bay Company. Within a year, he moved to a more favorable location on the northern side of the Columbia, in what is now Washington State, and built a new trading post and named it Fort Vancouver. As the Post Administrator, the good hearted doctor maintained a very good relationship with neighboring Indians and used his medical skills to tend to the terrible fevers that broke out among them.

The Fort belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company that was a rival of American trappers, and although company policy discouraged American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin was not one to refuse a helping hand to any trapper or settler in distress. When frustrated with the Hudson's Bay Company policy opposing American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin resigned and moved to Oregon City on the Willamette Falls. By 1848, Oregon had grown so much that it was officially designated a territory, and by 1859, it became the nation's thirty-third state. McLoughlin remained a vibrant public figure and became the Mayor of Oregon City in 1851. Many of the debates concerning Oregon's statehood are said to have taken place in McLoughlin's living room, and the Oregon State Legislature aptly named him the ``Father or Oregon.''

The McLoughlin House was designated as the National Historic Site, one of the first in the west, in 1941. I thank my constituents in Clackamas County, particularly John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association, for all of their hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure. Additionally, I thank Tracy Fortmann with the National Park Service at Fort Vancouver for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House. Mayor Alice Norris and the former mayors of Oregon City who have worked together to bring this legislation to the attention of the Oregon delegation deserve our thanks as well. Finally, I thank Representative Hooley for having the foresight to introduce this legislation in the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress and again in the 108th.

Mr. President, I rise today as an original co-sponsor of the McLoughlin House Preservation Act.

Dr. John McLoughlin, a powerful 6'4" man, is known, officially and fondly, as the ``Father of Oregon.'' His compassion played a critical role in the settling of the Northwest by Oregon Trail pioneers. Dr. McLoughlin's generosity to these early pioneers who arrived in the Oregon Territory after their incredible five month journey sick, hungry and without provisions was often the difference between survival and failure during their first winter.

This bill is a testimony to the hard work that one community can achieve. Preservation of the McLoughlin House and the nearby Barclay House, located in Oregon City, Oregon, is important to the cultural identity of Oregon. This bill would make them part of the Fort Vancouver National Park Service administrative site, thereby highlighting the interwoven connection between Fort Vancouver, the fur trade and the beginnings of the Oregon Territory.

Dr. McLoughlin first came to the Northwest in 1824, arriving at Fort George, now called Astoria, Oregon, to establish a supply center for the Hudson's Bay Company. Within a year, he moved to a more favorable location on the northern side of the Columbia, in what is now Washington State, and built a new trading post and named it Fort Vancouver. As the Post Administrator, the good hearted doctor maintained a very good relationship with neighboring Indians and used his medical skills to tend to the terrible fevers that broke out among them.

The Fort belonged to the Hudson's Bay Company that was a rival of American trappers, and although company policy discouraged American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin was not one to refuse a helping hand to any trapper or settler in distress. When frustrated with the Hudson's Bay Company policy opposing American settlers, Dr. McLoughlin resigned and moved to Oregon City on the Willamette Falls. By 1848, Oregon had grown so much that it was officially designated a territory, and by 1859, it became the nation's thirty-third state. McLoughlin remained a vibrant public figure and became the Mayor of Oregon City in 1851. Many of the debates concerning Oregon's statehood are said to have taken place in McLoughlin's living room, and the Oregon State Legislature aptly named him the ``Father or Oregon.''

The McLoughlin House was designated as the National Historic Site, one of the first in the west, in 1941. I thank my constituents in Clackamas County, particularly John Salisbury and the McLoughlin Memorial Association, for all of their hard work to preserve this Oregon treasure. Additionally, I thank Tracy Fortmann with the National Park Service at Fort Vancouver for her advocacy on behalf of the McLoughlin House. Mayor Alice Norris and the former mayors of Oregon City who have worked together to bring this legislation to the attention of the Oregon delegation deserve our thanks as well. Finally, I thank Representative Hooley for having the foresight to introduce this legislation in the House of Representatives in the 107th Congress and again in the 108th.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Hydrogen Transportation Wins Over Growing Reliance on Oil, H2 GROW, Act to accelerate getting cars and trucks powered by hydrogen on our roads as a way to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the House, Congressman Chris Cox will also be introducing the H2 GROW Act, so we will have the first bipartisan, bicameral bill to provide incentives for commercialing hydrogen-powered cars and the fueling stations needed for hydrogen cars to have widespread acceptance.

Our legislation has the support of a diverse coalition of interest groups, ranging from the Natural Resources Defense Council to the automobile industry. It is not a coalition that naturally flocks together. In fact, on many environmental issues, these groups are skirmishing, not coalescing.

Just as these groups have come together, Congressman Cox and I have felt, on a bipartisan basis, that he and I could find common ground on the critical issue of hydrogen fuel cells. Unlike some other proposals to promote hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, the H2 GROW Act goes beyond researching hydrogen to kickstart the market for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and fueling equipment. Legislation he and I will introduce today, the H2 GROW Act, uses marketplace incentives so that a significant number of fuel cell vehicles can hit American streets in the next decade. In effect, our legislation goes beyond the popular wisdom that you can't do much to actually get these vehicles on the street anytime soon.

Our legislation stipulates that when someone opens a fueling station, sells fueling equipment, sells hydrogen fuel for use in vehicles, or buys a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle, the tax man won't cometh for the next 10 years. By creating incentives this way, our legislation, can catalyze commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. Tax holidays and tax incentives will stimulate a private market for everything from creating the infrastructure needed for fuel cell vehicles, to direct incentives for American consumers.

By using this approach, our legislation only pays for performance. It does not subsidize research that may or may not advance the goal of getting hydrogen-powered cars on the road. The tax credits and other incentives only reward actions that actually put cars on the road or fueling equipment in use.

Best of all, the price tag is minimal. The government isn't expecting any significant revenue from fuel cell vehicles anyway in the next 10 years--and that's the life of our bill. So there's no enormous cost to the government.

Congress has a clear choice between taking 20 years to get a significant number of hydrogen vehicles on the road and making real, measurable progress in the next 10 years. In my view, reducing this country's dependence on foreign oil is a national security priority. At a time when more than half our energy is imported, enacting policies that promote energy independence is a true act of patriotism. Our legislation would promote that energy independence.

Here are two examples of how our legislation provides critically needed incentives for the fuel cell market:

Congressman Cox and I want to make it worth the consumer's while to buy a fuel cell vehicle in the first place. So a tax credit will help make up the difference between the cost of a gasoline-powered vehicle and a fuel cell car. For example, if in 2009, a consumer buys a fuel cell car for $25,000, the consumer can write $3,750 off his or her taxes to make the fuel cell car more affordable.

To help gasoline stations begin to shift to serving consumers with hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, our bill provides a 20-percent tax credit for every unit of hydrogen fuel sold equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.

The bill also helps taxpayers get the most of the fuel cell vehicle in terms of convenience and ease of use. With hydrogen fuel cells, filling up your car could be something you do at your home or your office as well as a retail filling station. So our bill gives taxpayers who install hydrogen fueling equipment in their homes a tax credit for up to 50 percent of the cost of the refueling equipment.

In my view, these are practical steps away from our reliance on foreign oil and toward better, cleaner transportation for all Americans. I also believe this plan is the best, most effective use of taxpayer dollars on this issue.

Companies like GM and Toyota--two car companies that are endorsing the H2 GROW Act--are already developing the technology to improve the performance and reduce the cost of fuel cell vehicles with more reliable, affordable

materials. These companies are already putting the money and time into that effort. What Congress needs to do is help the American people and American businesses take advantage of these new products as they're perfected, and help them hit the streets as quickly as possible.

I firmly believe the H2 GROW Act is a strong step toward helping consumers to shore up this Nation's economic and environmental stability for future generations. I know Congressman Cox feels the same way, and I encourage my colleagues to support our bipartisan legislation to accelerate commercialization of hydrogen fuel cell cars and help reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.