[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 7318-7321]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    ELECTRICITY GRID AND RELIABILITY

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to discuss with my colleagues two 
bills that I believe we are being negligent as a body in not taking up 
and passing. I am sure many of my colleagues are heading to the airport 
feeling like this week we accomplished a lot, or maybe they feel they 
gave a lot of speeches. The world is obviously a very dangerous and 
threatening place right now, and maybe my colleagues think if we get up 
and we communicate about that, we have done our job in Washington, DC. 
Well, the discussion is good, but action is even better when it comes 
to the American people. And there are two critical issues--two critical 
issues we have bipartisan support on, two critical issues both the 
House and Senate have passed legislation in the past to deal with and 
on which we could pass legislation today--that we cannot put on the 
priority list to take up and take action to help the American people.
  The first one is on the electricity grid and reliability. Now, some 
of my colleagues may remember that the blackout of last August 14 led 
to a report from a commission that was released more than two weeks 
ago. When the blackout occurred last summer, we said that we were going 
to get to the bottom of how it happened and what we should do about it. 
The No. 1 recommendation from that commission was to make reliability 
standards mandatory and enforceable, with penalties for noncompliance. 
People across America probably woke up after that blackout and thought, 
what happened? How did this whole situation happen to us?
  I can tell them how it happened. We do not have any mandatory rules 
in place for the electricity grid to make sure we protect consumers, 
that there is a reliability backstop governing actions by these energy 
companies.
  Why is there not? The independent system operators and utilities have 
rules, but they are not mandatory. In fact, the commission's report 
said First Energy, one of the key companies involved in last August's 
blackout, was not complying with the voluntary rules.
  Well, I am sure they did not feel there was much penalty in not 
complying with these rules because they were voluntary. So the 
commission's report is being very specific about what we should do. 
Congress needs to get about our business in passing legislation to make 
these rules mandatory.

[[Page 7319]]

  Now I know some people think, I have sat a night at home with candles 
or gotten the flashlight out or my fuse box goes out and it is not so 
bad. Well, I tell my colleagues, last August's blackout was a bad 
situation. We had people in New York who could not get down elevators 
and lived many flights up in apartments. We had an increase of people 
going to emergency rooms in New York because they were having heart 
attacks or other kinds of things were happening to them physically. 
Under the stress of trying to vacate many of the facilities in New 
York, we had major gridlock for hours. We lost $4 billion to $10 
billion economically as the result of the blackout, and we put our 
senior citizens at great risk of harm because they did not have access 
to electricity on a hot summer day.
  So the question is, what are we going to do about this and are we 
going to move ahead? Well, I came to speak about this a couple of weeks 
ago, before we adjourned for the recess. And since then, I find we have 
now 20 different newspapers across America that basically have asked, 
why hasn't Congress operated and gotten this done?
  For example, the Miami Herald--it is starting to get warm in Miami. 
People are realizing summer is not that far off and the Miami Herald 
stated that, ``Another long, hot summer is looming.'' These reliability 
bills should be enacted and they should be enacted now. That is not 
surprising since they know what a blackout can do in the heat of a 
summer.
  Another newspaper, the Boston Globe, stated that ``at the top of the 
commission's proposals is legislation that would make mandatory the 
grid reliability standards that are now voluntary. Congress should 
quickly pass a bill . . . that would do just that.''
  There is another newspaper that knows about this because its readers 
were impacted by that electricity grid blackout last August. They know 
the commission came back and recommended this is what we should do.
  The reason I am bringing this issue up now is because I think some 
people on the other side of the aisle think we are just going to take 
another stab at the good old Energy bill. We are going to make another 
attempt to pass legislation that just about every newspaper in America 
has editorialized against--a bill that myself and my colleagues have 
called legislation for hooters, polluters, and corporate looters, 
because those are the kinds of provisions that were included in the 
Energy bill that drowned out the more notable items such as the 
reliability standards also buried in there.
  Why are we going to continue to hold hostage legislation on 
reliability standards that would protect consumers across America from 
future blackouts, just to getting a big, fat energy bill for which 
there is never enough support? My colleagues know how bad that 
legislation is.
  My colleagues want to continue to use the reliability standards, 
which all the blackout commissions and various organizations across 
America have said consumers deserve as protection, as the train driving 
the energy bill. My colleagues are going to say, no, we are going to 
keep holding reliability hostage. We want to see if Congress blinks and 
maybe will go ahead and pass that big energy bill.
  Well, do not come to blame this side of the aisle when we do not get 
the Energy bill and we do not have reliability standards, because we 
are trying to pass these standards, just as various newspapers across 
the country are saying. In fact, I think the Detroit Free Press said it 
best. They said `` . . . the solution lies with Congress. Nearly 8 
months post-blackout, it still has not passed mandatory standards. 
Voters should turn on their power and demand it.''
  I think what they mean is that voters should be demanding that we do 
our job. Reliability legislation could have been brought up any day 
this week--Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday. I understand my colleagues 
have probably now gone to catch planes and meet other schedules, but 
this could be brought up next week. We could make a commitment to have 
it brought up. I do not think there is controversy over this particular 
legislation or the original provision as it was included in the Energy 
bill. It is just being used as bait and being held hostage.
  So there are other newspapers across the country that say, ``a 
responsible energy policy would be to strip out the mandatory federal 
[reliability] standards and pass them as a stand-alone bill.'' This is 
from the Memphis newspaper. The people in Memphis, TN, are asking, why 
are you doing this? Why are you continuing not to pass good legislation 
just so you can get bad legislation attached to it? When people across 
America are asking, what is going on here, we ought to come together as 
a body and figure this out.
  I do not like to be partisan about it because I would rather get it 
done. I would rather pass it. But newspapers are starting to realize 
that it is getting partisan. The Philadelphia Inquirer said that 
Republicans were happy to consider the bill--meaning the Energy bill--
happy to consider taking up some of the Energy bill's tax incentives as 
part of a corporate tax bill. That meant we took those tax credits out 
of the Energy bill or were willing to consider some energy tax credit 
on the FSC/ETI bill. So if we can do that, why can we not break out the 
reliability measure, why can we not take the reliability measure as 
stand-alone legislation?
  Now, the head of the North American Electric Reliability Council came 
and spoke before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee just before 
this report was being released. I asked him this very question. Their 
job is to try to provide reliability of energy to Americans throughout 
this country. I asked: Should we pass a stand-alone bill? His response 
was yes. Now, he was interrupted by the chairman, who then said: We do 
not need to do that now.
  Well, I disagree with the chairman of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, and I think we should consider moving ahead. I 
think that is what The Washington Post is saying. It said it would be a 
shame if there is insistence on the whole bill or nothing. That means 
holding reliability hostage. It means Congress would never get around 
to shoring up the electricity grid, and perhaps that is a shame, or 
perhaps shame is too mild a word.
  Well, I know I think it is too mild a word because we have been 
waiting since 1999 to get this legislation passed. By that, I mean we 
have had blackouts in various parts of America since 1996, and every 
time we have had one of those blackouts in those regions, people have 
come to us in Congress and said that we ought to pass some rules so we 
can get a mandatory reliability scheme in place and so utilities have 
to comply.
  We have had multiple blackouts since 1996. This picture shows across 
America where we have had blackouts since then. You can see the huge 
amounts of territory in various States: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, 
California, Washington, up now to the northeastern part of Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, New York. I ask my colleagues, are we going to wait until 
every State in the country has a blackout and then finally say, ``Oh, I 
guess we get the message, I guess we ought to do something about it?''
  I think the newspaper that said it best was the Indianapolis Star. 
These newspapers across America have shone a bright light on what has 
been an issue that most Members would like to get away from and not pay 
attention to. The Indianapolis Star said it best:

     . . . if the lights go out again this summer, spare the 
     investigation. Congress is to blame.

  I think that paper said it best. This is about us doing our job. This 
is about the attempt to bring up other legislation that may or may not 
have the agreement necessary for it to be passed, or to pass a cloture 
motion. There is support for this legislation. There is a report that 
demands our attention. There are consumers who are waiting for 
protection. We should do our job.
  I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 465, S. 
2236, a bill to enhance the reliability of the electric system, that 
the bill be read three times and passed, the motion to

[[Page 7320]]

reconsider be laid on the table, without any intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of 
Texas, I object.
  Ms. CANTWELL. How much time do I have, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 7\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, that sums it up. I am going to be here 
every day next week that we are in session, asking to pass this bill 
and asking my colleagues why, in the name of the American consumer and 
the assurance of our economy that cannot afford to have an unstable 
electricity grid with no rules and regulations, and energy companies 
that do not have to meet mandatory requirements--why we are not 
protecting these consumers.
  Many of my colleagues know there is another issue this Senator 
believes has not gotten the attention of this body. Each month another 
set of unemployment and job creation numbers come out. And each month 
the American public becomes more and more convinced that we are not 
living up to the prediction and promise of 2.6 million jobs that were 
supposed to be created this year. And because of that empty promise, 
the American people want to know when this body will take up and pass 
legislation to reinstate the unemployment compensation program.
  This program was designed for times just like these. The Federal 
government has an obligation to make sure this program is in place. 
What do you do during tough economic situations? You pass a Federal 
program to help ease the pain of those who are unemployed and cannot 
find work.
  In the Economic Report of the President, Mr. Bush's Administration 
projected that this year we were going to create 2.6 million jobs. We 
are nowhere near that projection. In fact, last month was the first 
month we saw any real job growth at all. But, after just one month of 
decent growth some people are saying that the economy is all better. 
But, there are many economists who disagree. The Miami Herald ran this 
headline:

       Jobs Report: Mixed Messages. The White House gets a boost 
     from strong job growth, but economists say unemployment will 
     remain a problem.

  Economists are saying it will remain a problem because the number of 
jobs being created is a long way away from what we need to get America 
back to work. There are 8.4 million Americans out of work. After the 
job creation in March, 8.1 million of those Americans will still be out 
of work.
  Here's what the Dayton Daily News said:

       Maybe there are brighter days ahead. But that's no comfort 
     now to the unprecedented number of laid-off workers, who have 
     scrambled without success to find a job and . . . [they have] 
     lost the little bit of help given under the State 
     unemployment benefits programs.

  So now those laid-off workers are looking to us for help. They want 
to know why they and their employers paid into the unemployment 
insurance system if there's no program to help them when they need it. 
There is $15.4 billion in the unemployment insurance trust fund--a fund 
that was created for economic times like these--and the federal 
government is not going to help us through this unemployment crisis.
  What is really happening in this recovery is that there are 1.1 
million jobless workers who have exhausted their benefits and are not 
receiving additional support. That is the number. Those 1.1 million 
people and the people who are following behind them want to point out 
to this Congress that the economy is not getting better at a fast 
enough pace to help them put food on the table today.
  I think that drawing a comparison to the first Bush administration is 
helpful because the first Bush administration faced a similar problem 
with the economy in the early 1990s. That recession was not as deep as 
the one we are dealing with today. In fact, during that recession we 
lost a total of 1.6 million jobs, while in this recession we lost a 
total of 2.6 million. But in the last recession, even after the economy 
had started to create jobs, George H.W. Bush still extended 
unemployment benefits. The reason that administration passed an 
extension, even though job creation had started, was because they knew 
that it was going to be a long road to get to a place where there were 
enough jobs for Americans who wanted and needed to work. They also knew 
that unemployment benefits are a stimulus for the economy--the people 
pay their mortgage, keep their health insurance, keep food on the 
table, until the job creation engine of the private sector started 
going again. That is what the temporary federal benefits are. They are 
insurance until the economy gets going again.
  We have had this debate back and forth, too, about who is to blame 
about this issue, or what is the big holdup. We have the Treasury 
Secretary who actually came to my State and said: We don't really 
believe that 2.6 million job creation number. Yes, the administration 
said it, but we don't think it is really going to happen. We don't know 
what the number is going to be.
  So, we have the administration saying they really don't know how many 
jobs will be created this year. Then we have had Mr. Greenspan, who 
most people respect, come before a variety of committees. He just came 
before the Joint Economic Committee this week. When he was asked if we 
should extend unemployment benefits, he said:

       I do think it's a good idea, largely because of the size of 
     exhaustions.

  What he is saying is that those 1.1 million people who have exhausted 
their jobs are out there to demonstrate that the economy isn't getting 
better at a fast enough pace. Therefore, we should continue the Federal 
program until we see more job creation.
  That is what I think should happen. I see lots of people across the 
country who are very frustrated by this.
  In fact, the Dayton News just in the last few weeks said:

       GOP leaders still dodging jobless.

  That is not this Democratic Senator saying this. This is a newspaper 
in a State that has been as hard hit by the loss of manufacturing jobs 
as my State has. Ohio and Washington are among the highest unemployment 
States. They are saying GOP leaders are dodging the jobless. Why are 
they saying that? Here's the answer of the Dayton paper:

       What's troubling . . . is how some Republican leaders are 
     hoisting another ``Mission Accomplished'' banner, this one to 
     hide the struggle of more than a million unemployed workers 
     who have exhausted State benefits without finding another 
     job.
       That is the Dayton paper saying that. That is not this 
     Senator.

  I happen to agree with the paper's point, that we should take care of 
these 1.1 million people Greenspan says are not getting help. The 
economists are saying we are not recovering fast enough; give these 
people the benefit. I believe the Senate must act.
  That is what Business Week said:

       Government actions will act as a bridge that will help the 
     economy cross over this extended valley of almost nonexistent 
     hiring.

  That is Business Week.
  Why do they say that? Because they know the best thing for us to do 
is pass the unemployment benefits and create a bridge until we see 
substantial job creation.
  I can't think of a better source to listen to than Business Week, 
which analyzes business trends, or Alan Greenspan, the Chairman of the 
Federal Reserve, when they say we ought to pass these benefits.
  This is about the 16th or 17th time we have been to the floor. I know 
people say we are working on something. People say, Let's compromise. 
Let us cut the program in half. But, Alan Greenspan didn't say cut the 
program in half. The Dayton newspaper didn't say cut it in half.


                       Unanimous Consent Request

  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to Calendar No. 470, 
which is S. 2250, a bill to extend unemployment insurance benefits for 
displaced workers, that the bill be read three times and passed and the 
motion to reconsider be laid on the table without intervening action or 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from Texas, I 
object.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. President.

[[Page 7321]]

  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for another 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. CANTWELL. The Presiding Officer has been so kind to listen with 
interest to these two issues. I hope he and my other colleagues will 
take these two issues to heart. I am being pointed in my remarks today 
because I believe these are two issues this body has the responsibility 
to deal with. These are two issues we can't get done and we are holding 
the American people hostage by not addressing our basic domestic 
economic security needs by giving people jobs and the reliable security 
of electricity grids.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chambliss). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________