Maria Cantwell

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about my electricity consumer protection amendment to improve what I believe is a flawed deregulation provision in the underlying energy bill. It is not widely known that the electricity title of this bill includes a new provision to further deregulate our energy markets. Indeed, many of these provisions were included, I believe, without adequate consideration and review by this body. For the first time this bill gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the statutory authority to allow market-based rates, a key component of deregulation. It also lowers the standard by which mergers of utilities can take place, and it repeals a current law that has been the cornerstone of consumer protection. Given the sweeping changes in this bill, I think it is important that we proceed cautiously on this path, and that we put safeguards in place, which my amendment does, to protect consumers as FERC is given this new responsibility. After last year's energy crisis, we should be asking ourselves, how do we better protect consumers, not how do we loosen the rules for utility companies so that they can have better controls in the marketplace. My amendment is written to protect consumers basically across the country from the same mishaps that happened in the western markets that have caused consumers in the West so much harm. After all we learned from the energy crisis and the collapse of Enron, it is plain that we need to move forward and set a clear set of rules to ensure that, in deregulated markets, consumers are protected. The fact is that consumers deserve efficient electricity markets with adequate protections and efficient oversight. As the bill now stands, we are giving the Enrons of the world more power to manipulate markets. In fact, without this consumer protection amendment this bill sends some of those people the opportunity, I believe, to actually end up overcharging consumers. These are commonsense ideas and that is why this amendment has gained support from a wide range of consumer, industry, local government and environmental groups. They are united behind the idea that consumers should be protected as this bill moves towards deregulation. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Dayton, Wellstone, Feingold, Boxer, Wyden, Murray, and Stabenow in this effort. Groups ranging from AARP to the American Public Power Association, to the Consumers Union and the Sierra Club, to the U.S. Conference of Mayors stand behind the consumer protection measures in this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a full list of the organizations which support this legislation be printed in the Record.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk amendment No. 3234.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, today we are considering legislation on one of the most important issues in our fight against terrorism--how we can effectively secure our borders. For me and for my State, one of the most critical things this bill does is to build on our efforts last year to increase staffing at the border by authorizing annual staffing increases on the borders for each of the next 5 years. Those of us who represent States along the northern border knew before September 11 that the northern border was woefully understaffed. While we were able to double staffing across the border last year, the northern border will need a yearly infusion of staff to guarantee our security for the future. This bill also incorporates many of the ideas of our colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, to create a workable entry and exit system and better tracking of those in this country on student visas, and I would like to thank her for her many years of work on these issues. Finally, this bill is about better use of technology to provide the enhanced security and border efficiency we need. But with every technological solution, comes the very real risk that the technology could be misused to invade personal privacy. I have worked hard to make sure that provisions of this bill preserve the right to privacy. As we come to rely more on technology, including voluntary programs that require our citizens to provide personal information to government agencies, we will need to make very sure that we have sufficient safeguards in place to protect how that information is stored and used. Many of the provisions of this bill are based on and cross-reference a provision I was able to include in the USA PATRIOT Act. That provision requires the State Department and the Department of Justice to develop a technology standard for the purpose of exchanging law enforcement and intelligence information necessary to screen applicants for U.S. visas and individual's using visas to enter the country. Within that standard, there are specific privacy safeguards to limit the application of the standard of aliens; limit the purposes the date collected could be used to background checks and border verification; limit the distribution of the data to consular officers and border inspectors; require that any changes to expand access to the data has to be done by regulation so that the public can have input; finally, we require Congressional oversight of the implementation of the technology standard. I am pleased that this legislation incorporates these safeguards and adds others specific to the ``interoperable database system'' that facilitates the sharing of law enforcement and intelligence information with the State Department and INS. The bill before us today limits re-dissemination of information accessed through the system; ensures that the information is used solely to determine the admissibility or deportability of an alien to the United States; requires accuracy, security and confidentiality; requires protection of any privacy rights of individuals who are subject of the information in the system; and requires the timely removal and destruction of obsolete or inaccurate information. Even with these provisions, Congress must keep a watchful eye on the implementation of the provisions of this legislation. We need to be vigilant to make certain we are achieving the proper balance between the need for national security and the need to protect the privacy of our citizens. I am concerned about protecting the privacy of my constituents and citizens across our country, and I thank the authors of this bill for working with me to address these concerns. I support this legislation because I believe that the security measures are well balanced against privacy concerns--and both security and privacy must be served.

Ms. CANTWELL. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3162. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 7 minutes prior to the Senator from Louisiana.

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this amendment, which would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development. I believe drilling in ANWR is a short-term, environmentally unconscionable fix that fails to address our Nation's real malady: Our dependence not just on foreign oil, but our overdependence on oil itself. I believe there is no way to justify drilling in ANWR in the name of national security. Oil extracted from the wildlife refuge would not reach refineries for 7 to 10 years and would never satisfy more than 2 percent of our Nation's oil demands at any one time. Thus, it would have no discernable short-term or long-term impact on the price of fuel or our increasing dependence on OPEC imports. Put another way, the amount of economically recoverable oil would temporarily increase our domestic reserves by only one-third of 1 percent, which would not even make a significant dent in our imports, much less influence world prices by OPEC. An ``ANWR is the Answer'' energy policy fails to recognize the fundamental truth: we cannot drill our way to energy independence. The United States is home to only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, and unless we take steps necessary to increase the energy efficiency of our economy and, in particular, the transportation sector, this Nation's consumers will remain subject to the whims of the OPEC cartel. To suggest that drilling in the Arctic is the answer is to ignore the facts and creates a complacency that truly jeopardizes our economic and energy security. Furthermore, I believe the recent U.S. Geological Survey report on the biological value of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain and the impacts of oil and gas development on resident species reinforces what many of us have argued from the beginning. Drilling in the Arctic represents a real and significant threat to a wide range of species including caribou, snow geese, musk oxen, and other wildlife. This report represents sound science. It was peer reviewed and summarizes more than 12 years of research. In stark contrast, the Department of the Interior's recent release of a new two-page memo, which purports to examine the impacts of ``more limited drilling'' in 300,000 acres of ANWR, was prepared in 6 days. One report, 12 years of research; the other report, just 6 days. Essentially, in this report the administration decided to dispute its own scientists and say drilling in ANWR was acceptable. I disagree with that. Rather than drilling in ANWR, I believe our task is to craft a balanced policy that will permanently strengthen our national security and energy independence. We need an energy policy that endows America with a strong and independent 21st century energy system by recognizing fuel diversity, energy efficiency, the great assets that distributed generation will create in the future, and environmentally sound domestic production as a permanent solution to our Nation's enduring energy needs. We are making some progress on these goals within this bill. Obviously, one of the most important provisions the Senate has thus far debated involves the expedited construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska's North Slope to the lower 48 States. There are at least 32 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in existing Alaskan fields, and building a pipeline to the continental United States would create thousands of jobs, provide a huge opportunity for the steel industry, and help prevent our Nation from becoming dependent on foreign natural gas, from many of the same Middle Eastern countries from which we import oil. It is very important that we make this investment in new natural gas and in job development. Adopting energy efficient technologies can significantly advance our national and economic security. For example, a Department of Energy report, and these are amazing figures, but this Department of Energy report stated that automakers commonly use low- friction tires on new cars to help them comply with fuel economy standards. However, because there are no standards or efficiency labels for replacement tires, most consumers unwittingly purchase less efficient tires when the originals wear out, even though low-friction tires would only cost a few dollars more per tire and actually would save the average American driver about $100 worth of fuel over the 40,000 mile life of the tires. Fully phased in, better replacement tires would cut gasoline consumption of all U.S. vehicles by about 3 percent, saving our Nation over 5 billion barrels of oil over the next 50 years, the same amount the U.S. Geological Survey says can be recovered from ANWR. Unfortunately, I also believe we have thus far missed the single most important opportunity in this bill for truly enhancing our nation's energy security and minimizing our foreign oil dependence. That is, we have missed the opportunity to put in place real and meaningful CAFE standards, which would increase the efficiency of our Nation's vehicles and decrease our foreign oil dependence. I continue to believe the only way to permanently ensure our Nation's security is to look beyond 19th century policies that continue our country's reliance on extraction and combustion of fossil fuels. Now is the time to launch the transition to a new, 21st century system of distributed generation based on renewable energy sources and environmentally responsible fuel cells. Imagine today if a significant portion of American homes and businesses produced their electricity from these renewables. I think about the last crisis in the 1970s when our overdependence on foreign oil and high prices changed the dynamic in how many homes were heated with oil and made significant reductions. Our country needs to make those same changes today. These are policies that will make our energy system truly secure and independent. I agree our national security depends in part on the United States becoming less dependent on foreign energy resources, and that we must develop more domestic supplies and a better balance of renewable energy that will also make us less dependent on nonrenewable fossil fuels. It would be a mistake to look at this ANWR debate in only one way, and to not invest in our country's new sources of energy. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to oppose it in the name of national security, to move ahead onto new energy sources and a 21st century energy policy. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate all your efforts on this legislation, and I agree that this bill is drafted in a manner that will not limit the development and implementation of new election technologies so long as the new technologies satisfy security protocols and meet the requirements of the minimum standards. I also hope that this legislation will in fact spur the development of new election technologies that are more voter friendly and more cost efficient. Interactive Voter Registration and Funding Mechanism

Ms. CANTWELL. I agree completely with my colleague from Oregon. The mail in voting system in my State has allowed voters to have flexibility in deciding whether to go to the polls or vote from home. In our last election, over 65 percent opted to vote by mail. Our system has increased participation, and has resulted in no serious allegation of fraud. Like the mail in system in Oregon, I was elected in a very close election where the majority of ballots were cast by mail, but no allegations of fraud were raised. In addition, voting by mail allows voters to be significantly more informed. By sitting at home with their ballot and their sample voting materials, voters are able to make more informed choices without the pressures of a busy schedule or a line at the booth. I am very pleased that this agreement provides protections that will make sure that all legally registered first time voters who vote by mail, will still have their votes counted. Their votes will be counted if State election officials determine the voter is properly registered according to Washington State law. In Washington, if a first-time voter forgets to include a photocopy in their ballot, the election official will verify whether or not the voter is in fact legally registered by following the Washington state law, and performing a careful verification of the signature on the ballot. This compromise makes sense because it allows each state to best determine how to count provisional ballots, and because it provides the same protection to mail in voters that are already provided to voters who vote at the polls in the original election reform bill. I ask the Senator if he agrees that this is how the compromise will work?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I take this opportunity to commend Senators Dodd, McConnell, Schumer, and Bond for their dedication and diligence in addressing what I believe to be an issue of critical importance to our country--protecting voting rights and ensuring the integrity of the electoral system in our Nation. Especially given the events in the world today, making certain that each citizen's vote is counted and promoting public trust and confidence in our election process is crucial. The State of Washington has a long and trusted history as a leader in election administration. Through great efforts and cooperation, the state has pioneered such programs as Motor Voter, provisional balloting, vote by mail, and absentee voting. I would like to thank Senator Dodd, the chairman of the Rules committee for his support for an amendment that I offered with Senator Murray's support that has been adopted. The amendment guarantees that states are able to continue using mail-in voting, while also providing new safeguards to make mail-in voters aware of how to properly fill out their ballots, and how, if needed to obtain a replacement. Voters in my State are proud of our system that offers voters the option of voting by mail or in the polling place, and they are extremely committed to seeing it continue. The mail-in ballot, in my opinion, offers voters several advantages. First, it allows voters to cast their ballots on their own time and at their own convenience. It also allows voters to make more informed choices, as they are able to consult literature sent by the State and by the campaigns in making their decisions. Because these votes are cast without the pressure of other voters waiting in line, or without the time crunch of being late to work or to pickup the kids, voters are also less likely to make mistakes that will disqualify their ballots. In addition, the mail-in system is very secure. Each ballot that is cast by mail requires, that the voter sign the outer envelope. This signature is then checked against the voters signature that is kept on file and only when there is agreement that the signatures match is the ballot counted. Washington State has consistently increased the number of voters choosing to vote by mail and through provisional voting without any allegations that these types of voting have involved fraud or other misconduct. In fact, the procedures in place have consistently ensured the integrity and security of our elections and led to public confidence in our system that is unparalleled anywhere in the country. It has not always been this way. In the early 1990s, we had several close elections that pointed out the vulnerabilities in our system. These close elections led Washington to become one of the first States to adopt statewide guidelines that ensured that each jurisdiction followed the same rules in determining how ballots are verified and counted. In addition, my State also adopted other requirements for testing and procedural consistency. It is my hope that this legislation will lead other states to follow our example and institute similar guidelines and procedures that will result in more people voting and making sure that all votes are properly cast and counted. Our challenge, at the Federal level, is to ensure that in passing legislation that reduces hurdles to civic participation across the country, we respect the role of the States in selecting types of voting that work well for their citizens and lead to maximum participation. I believe that this bill as amended does that, and I would like to thank the chairman of the Rules Committee for his commitment to this bill and to ensuring that states have the flexibility to keep their systems in place. I would like to address one additional point. In drafting legislation, it is often very difficult to look to the future and anticipate the impact that legislation will have on new technologies. To truly reform the Federal election process, this legislation must remedy the infirmities of the present system. However, it also must be forward-looking in its approach. It should welcome the implementation of new election technologies. The flexibility of this legislation to accommodate innovation will be the ultimate strength of federal election reform. I firmly believe that voting by computer, whether by internet or some other remote electronic system, is likely to happen in many states in the near future. In fact, Arizona has already held a party caucus in which voters were permitted to vote over the internet. At the same time, I believe that the security concerns are such that most States, mine included, are not yet ready to provide this option to voters. However, in the interests of looking to the future, I would like to seek clarification from the chairman of the Rules Committee about how this legislation would affect internet or other forms of remote electronic voting. Is it the Chairman's understanding that the bill as it is currently written would not prevent States from offering voters the option of voting on the internet, so long as the State could show that the internet voting system complied with the security protocol standards written by the new Election Administration Commission, and that the voting system also complied with the requirements of the legislation on accessibility for the disabled, providing an audit trail of ballots, and by providing voters a means to make certain they had not made a mistake?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to thank my colleague Senator Bond for his hard work in making sure that the identification requirements for first time voters in this bill did not have the unintended consequences for people who vote by mail. I think that we all agree that any election reform passed by the U.S. Senate should be about two things: deterring voter fraud and promoting voter participation. Many weeks of negotiations finally have produced an agreement that I believe will do both. Thanks to hard work by Senator Wyden and Senator Bond, together with the managers of the bill, Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell, and Senator Murray and Senator Smith, we have come up with a solution. The compromise addresses Senator Bond's concerns about making certain first time voters are who they say they are, but that doesn't have an unfair and burdensome impact on progressive states like Washington and Oregon where many--and in the case of Oregon all--voters vote by mail. This compromise will not simply benefit voters who vote by mail in Washington in Oregon, but will benefit all States that allow voters to vote by mail. This compromise does two things. First, it creates a mechanism for election officials to verify the identity of first time voters who register by mail before they get to the polls. And second, it makes clear that voters who vote by mail, just like voters who go to the polls, can still cast a provisional or replacement ballot even if they fail to provide identification in their ballot when they cast their vote by mail. The provisional or replacement ballot will be counted as long as elections officials determine the voter's eligibility under the laws of their State. With regard to the first part of the compromise, election officials in States like Oregon and Washington will be able to satisfy themselves about the identity of a first time voter before they arrive at the pools or cast their ballot by mail for the first time. If the election official is able to compare the information that the voter provides on his or her voter registration card with information contained in an existing state database such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, and the information matches, the voter will not be asked to produce independent identification when they vote. In fact, even if a voter fails to provide the identification information at the time they vote, the vote may still be cast as a provisional or replacement ballot and will be counted as long as State elections officials verify the voter's eligibility under the laws of the voter's State. Is that the Senator's understanding?

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Craig amendment which would strike this bill's electricity title, with the exception of its reliability and the Federal Trade Commission related consumer protection provisions. I thank the Senator for offering this amendment. Because of the truly unique nature of the Northwest energy system-- and the historic Federal presence, predominance of public power and our hydroelectric base, to name a few distinguishing characteristics--I believe the electricity title of this legislation is possibly the single most important part of this bill to consumers in Washington State and, frankly, I believe the electricity title falls short of what is necessary to protect our Nation's consumers in this inevitable challenge that we have had in Washington State. What is at stake here, I believe--and I appreciate the chairman's efforts to try to craft a compromise electricity title. However, my position on the importance of consumer protection provisions has me concerned about the impact that this particular title will have on the State of Washington where the electricity market has gone awry. Consumers in my State are suffering from rate increases of up to 88 percent on account of the market dysfunction that unfolded in the West last year. I believe the western electricity crisis was really precipitated by two factors: Obviously, California adopted a restructuring plan without adequate thought and deliberation, and the fact that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signed off on it. Then FERC allowed generators in the West to charge market-based rates without first ensuring that those markets were sufficient in their competition and that they were adequately monitoring those markets over time. What that meant is that many industries in my State could not afford those high electricity prices, but nothing was being done to determine whether they were just and reasonable. Many people lost their jobs, and many children were not allowed to go to college because their families were without income. Many consumers paid very high electricity rates. I believe the provisions contained in the electricity title will do nothing to prevent another western electricity crisis from occurring. What is more, and what my colleagues should be concerned about, is that this is an electricity title that will do nothing to prevent FERC from making those same mistakes again in other regions. The electricity title contained in this bill restructures the entire utility industry without giving the Senate ample opportunity to consider the implications of this action. In fact, these very amendments were brought up on the floor without anyone knowing they were being brought up. This bill does not direct FERC to establish clear rules for when market rates can be charged, nor does it establish effective measures to police the market and provide needed remedies for any abuses or market imperfections. Again, these are very important issues for consumers. This electricity title repeals PUCHA, the Public Utility Company Holding Act, and moves merger approval authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission to FERC. In doing so, it weakens the burden of proof standard that companies must meet before they are allowed to merge. In the aftermath of everything that has occurred in California, everything that has occurred with Enron, why would we take one policy in which we have a standard by which the merger of companies and prices are impacted and remove that standard and make it a lesser degree? I do not believe that is in the interest of consumer protection. I support the Craig amendment to strike the electricity title because I believe these provisions do push the Northwest closer to a regional transmission organization. As some of my colleagues may know, FERC has repeatedly said the Northwest ought to join a westwide RTO. So, again, to Northwest consumers who have lost jobs because of the electricity crisis or are paying higher rates because of the electricity crisis who were forced under emergency order to send our power down to California and consequently paid a higher price, the fact that we might be hitching our fortunes to California does not sound like a very good issue for Washingtonians. I am very concerned because even FERC's own cost-benefit analysis suggests that consumers in the Northwest might suffer from the establishment of an RTO organization on a westwide basis. It is very important, although there are some other things such as the renewable portfolio standard which I think is really a subpar issue, and I think we need to improve on that, we think of the consumer interests. I support the Craig amendment, and I hope we will be able to change some of these issues and protect consumers in the future. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, is it the Chairman's understanding that the bill as it is currently written would not prevent States from offering voters the option of voting on by the Internet, so long as the State could show that the internet voting system complied with the security protocol standards written by the new Election Administration Commission, and that the voting system also complied with the requirements of the legislation on accessibility for the disabled, providing an audit trail of ballots, and by providing voters a means to make certain they had not made a mistake?

Ms. CANTWELL. I agree that it is very important that any voting system, particularly an electronic voting system have very good security. However, I believe that it is likely that in the near future we will in fact have the necessary security, the necessary assurances of secrecy, and of voter authentication, to make internet voting workable and I am pleased that this bill leaves the decision about moving forward with internet voting up to the individual States. I appreciate all the Chairman's efforts on this legislation, and I agree that this bill is drafted in a manner that will not limit the development and implementation of new election technologies so long as the new technologies satisfy security protocols and meet the requirements of the minimum standards. I also hope that this legislation will in fact spur the development of new election technologies that are more voter friendly and more cost efficient.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Smith Act, a bill to provide law enforcement the tools to track and convict sexual assailants, and to help ensure that rape survivors are provided prompt treatment that also provides the dignity and respect they deserve. This bill addresses a serious problem in this country, the huge DNA backlog and uneven processing of DNA evidence in rape cases. According to the Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every two minutes. One in three women will be raped in her lifetime. In my home State of Washington the number of sexual assaults is even higher. According to the Washington State Office of Crime Victims Advocacy 38 percent of women in my State have been sexually assaulted. This is unacceptable. Debbie Smith, is a native of Roanoke, VA, who was brutally raped in the woods behind her house in March 1989. Six years later, because evidence had been properly preserved, her assailant's DNA profile was cross-referenced with the Virginia DNA Databank and was found to match the DNA of a current prison inmate. He was convicted of the rape and was sentenced to two life terms plus 25 years. Debbie Smith has since become a national spokesperson on the importance of collecting and analyzing DNA samples. As Debbie Smith and women in my State have come to know collecting, analyzing, and entering this critical DNA information evidence into the Combined DNA System, CODIS, database is often the key to finding and convicting a sexual assailant and stopping him from attacking again. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions throughout the country do not have the funding for this simple, yet vital process. Consequently, crime scene kits go unanalyzed and valuable DNA information is lost forever. Today, over 20,000 DNA samples are sitting useless in storage. These samples could be holding the clues needed to solve crimes, or even to track a serial rapist. This means 20,000 women who had the courage to report their rape may never find the peace of mind of someone knowing their assailant has been caught. By authorizing funding to carry out analyses on crime scenes samples and cross-reference DNA evidence with crime databanks, this bill provides law enforcement with the tools necessary for an effective and successful criminal investigation. The bill also provides grants to broaden the use of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners program. The SANE program provides nurses and first responders with specific training so that critical forensic evidence is thoroughly collected and documented and that sexual assault survivors are treated with professional care in a confidential and sensitive environment. SANE nurses can make the difference to women facing one of the most difficult events of their lives. And, SANE nurses can make the difference in sending valuable information to crime laboratories rather than improperly collected evidence that is impossible to analyze. In 1995, a young woman at home in Olympia, WA, was raped at gunpoint. At St. Peter Hospital later that night, she said the SANE nurses who collected DNA evidence after the assault ``made [her] feel at ease, more confident, and more comfortable.'' The SANE nurses' training in proper evidence collection proved equally valuable. The DNA evidence collected, when cross-referenced with the CODIS was databank matched that of a convicted serial rapist Jeffrey Paul McKechnie, the ``I-5 Rapist.,'' resulting in his conviction for the crime. This bill is a reasonable and necessary step that needs to be taken to address the backlog of DNA samples from rape cases across the country, and to broaden the use of the SANE program to improve and standardize the collection of forensic evidence while also addressing the physical and psychological needs of the victim. This bill makes sure that we can catch the next Jeffrey Paul McKechnie and make our streets safer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and get the necessary funding to address the DNA backlog in this critical area once and for all.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Debbie Smith Act, a bill to provide law enforcement the tools to track and convict sexual assailants, and to help ensure that rape survivors are provided prompt treatment that also provides the dignity and respect they deserve. This bill addresses a serious problem in this country, the huge DNA backlog and uneven processing of DNA evidence in rape cases. According to the Department of Justice, somewhere in America, a woman is raped every two minutes. One in three women will be raped in her lifetime. In my home State of Washington the number of sexual assaults is even higher. According to the Washington State Office of Crime Victims Advocacy 38 percent of women in my State have been sexually assaulted. This is unacceptable. Debbie Smith, is a native of Roanoke, VA, who was brutally raped in the woods behind her house in March 1989. Six years later, because evidence had been properly preserved, her assailant's DNA profile was cross-referenced with the Virginia DNA Databank and was found to match the DNA of a current prison inmate. He was convicted of the rape and was sentenced to two life terms plus 25 years. Debbie Smith has since become a national spokesperson on the importance of collecting and analyzing DNA samples. As Debbie Smith and women in my State have come to know collecting, analyzing, and entering this critical DNA information evidence into the Combined DNA System, CODIS, database is often the key to finding and convicting a sexual assailant and stopping him from attacking again. Unfortunately, many jurisdictions throughout the country do not have the funding for this simple, yet vital process. Consequently, crime scene kits go unanalyzed and valuable DNA information is lost forever. Today, over 20,000 DNA samples are sitting useless in storage. These samples could be holding the clues needed to solve crimes, or even to track a serial rapist. This means 20,000 women who had the courage to report their rape may never find the peace of mind of someone knowing their assailant has been caught. By authorizing funding to carry out analyses on crime scenes samples and cross-reference DNA evidence with crime databanks, this bill provides law enforcement with the tools necessary for an effective and successful criminal investigation. The bill also provides grants to broaden the use of the Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners program. The SANE program provides nurses and first responders with specific training so that critical forensic evidence is thoroughly collected and documented and that sexual assault survivors are treated with professional care in a confidential and sensitive environment. SANE nurses can make the difference to women facing one of the most difficult events of their lives. And, SANE nurses can make the difference in sending valuable information to crime laboratories rather than improperly collected evidence that is impossible to analyze. In 1995, a young woman at home in Olympia, WA, was raped at gunpoint. At St. Peter Hospital later that night, she said the SANE nurses who collected DNA evidence after the assault ``made [her] feel at ease, more confident, and more comfortable.'' The SANE nurses' training in proper evidence collection proved equally valuable. The DNA evidence collected, when cross-referenced with the CODIS was databank matched that of a convicted serial rapist Jeffrey Paul McKechnie, the ``I-5 Rapist.,'' resulting in his conviction for the crime. This bill is a reasonable and necessary step that needs to be taken to address the backlog of DNA samples from rape cases across the country, and to broaden the use of the SANE program to improve and standardize the collection of forensic evidence while also addressing the physical and psychological needs of the victim. This bill makes sure that we can catch the next Jeffrey Paul McKechnie and make our streets safer. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bill and get the necessary funding to address the DNA backlog in this critical area once and for all.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I campaigned on the issue of transforming our election process and said repeatedly I would make it a top priority in the Senate. It was a tremendous experience last year to participate in the debate on this legislation and assist Senators McCain and Feingold with the passage of this legislation from the Senate the first time. It took an extra year to get this bill through the House and send it to the President, but my wait has been nothing like that of the wait of the Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin who have endured repeated efforts through the years. I want to give them my heartiest congratulations for an extraordinary accomplishment that is truly in the public's interest. Campaign finance is at the heart of every issue we deal with in Congress. From energy, to health care, to gun control, to bankruptcy, political interest groups that use money to make their agenda heard all too often are larger than the public's interest in framing the debate. This legislation will move the debate closer to the public. This bill is about slowing the ad war. It is about calling sham issue ads what they really are. It is about slowing political advertising and making sure the flow of negative ads by outside interest groups does not continue to permeate the airwaves. Ninety-eight million dollars worth of these ads ran in the 2000 election by narrowly focused special interest groups based out of Washington, DC. This legislation will change that and again focus these debates more on the public agenda. This bill also stops the unlimited flow of corporate contributions, or soft money, that contributed to the volume of ad wars in the 2000 election. This bill forces all of us--candidates, parties, and groups that seek to influence the outcome of elections--to play by the same rules and raise and spend money in lower amounts. This is a banner day for Congress. This bill is a huge step forward in the right direction. There is much more work that needs to be done in reforming our political system. I am glad this day has finally come, and I urge my colleagues to support this very important legislation that has endured because of the hard work of two Senators. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. How long?

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to approve this amendment that we have been debating, which would subject energy derivatives trading to the same degree of regulatory scrutiny as many other commodities. Senator Feinstein and others have worked hard to bring about a fair resolution to this issue, and to the chaos brought upon many Western States in the electricity crisis as it unfolded. What I think is important to understand is exactly what this amendment does. First and foremost, my colleagues must recognize that this legislation is designed to close a specific loophole--the Enron loophole--that allowed Enron and other online traders to sell energy futures behind closed doors, without any form of safeguards for consumers or investors whatsoever. At its core, our amendment would allow the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to treat energy futures similar to other regulated commodity futures. It does not give the CFTC any new powers that it does not already have over many other futures markets. This legislation deals specifically with energy futures, without tampering with regulation of financial derivatives as much of the floor debate would lead you to believe. Some have claimed that by subjecting energy derivatives to the same level of regulatory scrutiny as other commodities, we would be imposing some sort of unacceptable level of ``uncertainty'' on these markets. I find that argument fundamentally flawed. How, then, does one explain the prominence and global importance of other American markets, such as NYMEX, already under the CFTC jurisdiction? They don't seem to be struggling because of oversight and scrutiny by the CFTC. In fact, I believe that by subjecting trading platforms, such as Enron Online, to the same transparency and antifraud rules as other types of exchanges, we will actually be increasing the confidence of market participants. They can know with certainty that prices for energy derivatives are not the result of manipulation. And believe me, in my State, consumers have a lot of doubt about why they are paying a 50-percent rate increase in energy prices. Under this amendment, consumers can rest assured that they will not become the casualties of gaming in these markets. That is very important. To quote the New York Mercantile Exchange, the world's largest trader of energy futures: With numerous reports of reduced confidence in market integrity in the wake of the Enron bankruptcy, never has it been more important to restore faith in that great American resource, our competitive markets. Some have suggested that there has not yet been conclusive evidence that Enron manipulated derivative markets and, they argue, that alone is reason enough not to proceed. Mr. President, there never will be conclusive evidence of such market manipulation, if Enron Online and businesses like it are allowed to continue operating in secret. I ask the opponents of this amendment to think about the ramifications of this situation on the ongoing investigation into price manipulation in my home state. As I said, in my State, consumers have seen rates increase up to 50 percent in long- term contracts that they are going to have to live with for many years. In fact, Enron is still buying power at cheap prices, marking it up, and selling it to utilities at higher prices because of these long-term contracts. Yet, FERC's investigation into these price hikes has been severely hampered by the lack of information surrounding swaps transactions done in secret. The task of investigating Enron's collapse and Enron Online's impact on energy markets has been made infinitely more complex by virtue of the fact that no one was required to maintain books or records that would have shown this clear pattern of irregular trading. Instead, we are saddled with this post hoc investigation that may well last years. Some colleagues talked a lot about the President's Working Group recommendations, and some have suggested we delay this legislation. What is interesting is that many of the names thrown about this morning, Alan Greenspan, then-Secretary of Treasury Larry Summers, SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt, and CFTC Chairman Bill Ranier, were signatories to the President's Working Group report given to Congress before passage of the Commodity Futures Modification Act of 2000. While it is true that the report supported exemptions for over-the-counter derivatives, the report included significant cautionary notes. The President's Working Group basically issued a warning saying: commodities with finite supplies are more easily subject to price manipulation. Obviously, those of us from the West know how finite the energy supplies can be, as California, Washington, and other States experienced the unbelievable skyrocketing of prices. What we, the cosponsors of this amendment, are talking about here is how to implement the Working Group's recommendations on antifraud provisions. We are saying transaction information should be collected and kept. Then, if there is a suspicion of fraud, investigators will have something tangible to examine. The Working Group unanimously recommended that there should be an exclusion for bilateral transactions between sophisticated counterparties, but it made specific note: Other than transactions that involve nonfinancial commodities with finite supplies. The Working Group recommended an exclusion from the Commodity Exchange Act for derivatives traded on electronic trading systems provided systems limit participation to sophisticated counterparties trading for their own accounts and are not used to trade contracts that involve nonfinancial commodities--again culling out nonfinancial commodities with finite supplies. The Working Group noted the danger of exempting these transactions, including energy derivatives, from regulatory scrutiny, and they did this in November of 1999. These are precisely the transactions that our amendment would put under the jurisdiction of the CFTC. Unfortunately, these cautionary notes were not heeded by Congress and were instead translated into a statutory exemption for bilateral energy derivatives and electronic exchanges in the context of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. I can tell you, my State has suffered greatly because of this exemption and has not been able to find out whether price manipulation has actually occurred. I also suggest that my colleagues take note of the Working Group's recommendation that the regulatory regime should be reevaluated from time to time. In the aftermath of Enron's collapse, a reevaluation is certainly warranted. Again, to quote from the President's Working Group: Although this report recommends the enactment of legislation to clearly exclude most over-the-counter financial derivatives transactions from the Commodities Exchange Act, this does not mean that transactions may not, in some instances, be subject to a different regulatory regime or that a need for regulation of currently unregulated activities may not arise in the future. Specifically, the Working Group recommends the enactment of a limited regulatory regime aimed at enhancing market transparency and efficiency may become necessary. That is what we are doing. We are saying that these things may have come about because of the Enron collapse. We have seen, while Congress may have acted in 2000 thinking this exemption was the right thing to do, this exemption cost consumers--if not the high rates they are paying directly--it has at least cost them confidence in the system. We must restore that confidence by opening up the energy derivatives market to transparency and oversight. I urge my colleagues to support this very important amendment and to tell the American public that Congress is acting to protect them from the kinds of loopholes that Enron was able to walk through and cost consumers higher energy prices in this country. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL. I will wait.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the Kyl amendment. We are debating this energy bill against the backdrop of one of the country's most severe energy crises, which has definitely impacted ratepayers in my State and in many parts of the West. After September 11, the war against terrorism even more underscores the need for us to develop a national energy policy that helps create more independence. It is clear that the time has come for us to enact a 21st century energy policy. But we will fail if this bill is simply about the extent to which we should increase oil production or determine the best route for pipelines. We will fail if we do not learn from the lessons of the past and recognize that we are on the cusp of a revolution of energy technology that could be as significant as the revolution in computing technology. We are faced with a clear choice: We can go down the path of debating false choices of conservation versus production, regulation versus deregulation, nuclear versus fossil. But I think it is time that we recognize what is at the core of the debate is this 21st century energy policy; about developing a new policy that will lead us to a system of cleaner, more efficient, distributed power, located closer to the homes and businesses that it is built to serve. Mr. President, the renewable portfolio standard we are debating today is the centerpiece of our effort of a 21st century energy policy marked by environmentally responsible sources of energy. An aggressive renewables portfolio standard will help this Nation diversify its energy, level the playing field for renewable resources, and encourage investment in clean energy technology. A transition to clean, renewable sources of energy will help stabilize increasing and volatile fossil fuel prices, ease energy supply shortages and disruptions, clean up dangerous air pollution, and reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. Again, arguments in favor of a strong Federal renewables portfolio standard are straightforward. An RPS will spur more environmentally responsible generation, diversify electricity sources, and that is enhancing and helping to protect our economy from price spikes; and, three, create a national market for renewables and clean energy technology, spurring innovation and reducing their cost--potentially for international export. Today, less than 2 percent of the Nation's electricity is generated by nontraditional sources of power such as wind, solar, and geothermal energy. This has to change. By putting a renewables portfolio standard in place, we will set the Nation down a path toward a more independent, sustainable, and stable power supply. I want to emphasize just how important it is to diversify our generating resources. As many of my colleagues are aware, last year the Pacific Northwest suffered the second worst drought in the history of our State. In Washington State, about 80 percent of our generation comes from hydroelectric sources. So because of this drought, consumers in my State were exposed far more directly to the pervasive market dysfunction activity that happened in the West. As a result, many of our utilities have had to raise their retail rates by as much as 50 percent. So I believe we must diversify our resource portfolio, but to accomplish this goal, many of our utilities are making a tremendous investment in new generation. Much of it is from ample renewable resources. We realize the investment in renewables is affordable and a perfect complement to our hydroelectric base. For example, I visited, in our State, the Stateline Wind Project last August, which is located in Walla Walla, WA. The wind farm, which went into operation December 13, consists of 399 turbines and has a capacity to produce 263 megawatts of electricity. That is enough energy to serve almost 70,000 homes. So this is working. The Bonneville Power Administration, which supplies about 70 percent of the power consumed in Washington State, has set a goal of obtaining a total of a thousand megawatts of energy. Many of our small and rural utilities are banding together to invest in wind projects, and the Yakima Tribe is also exploring similar options. As we consider the renewables portfolio standards provisions of this bill, I think it is important to recognize the tremendous untapped potential that these renewables represent. Washington State and the Pacific Northwest have begun to make this investment. With the construction now underway, our regional renewable resources, excluding most hydropower, will soon approach 4 percent--far surpassing the national average. But I believe we can still do better. A strong renewables portfolio standard will create the market certainty that companies and utilities need to continue down the path toward resource diversification and technological innovation. Specifically, increasing our supply of renewable resources makes not just environmental sense but also economic sense. A study released last November, sponsored by a group of Northwest utilities and interest groups, estimated that the international market for clean energy technologies will grow to $180 billion a year over the next 20 years-- that's right, $180 billion a year over the next 20 years. It is in our national economic interest to set policy that will ensure the United States captures a major part of this market. Already the Northwest has a $1.4 billion clean energy industry that is on track to grow to $2.5 billion over the next several years, creating 12,000 new jobs in our region. That is right, 12,000 new jobs in our region. With the right public policies in place, we can attain 3.5 percent of the worldwide market for clean energy technologies, including not just generation but smart-grid transmission technologies needed to bring power to market more efficiently and create as many as 35,000 new jobs in the Northwest. Developing the clean energy technology industry on a national level means job creation. We need a Federal renewable portfolio standard both to break our century-old reliance on traditional fossil fuels and to create predictable markets for renewable technologies and lay the groundwork for even greater innovations. Last week, the Senate was unable to make meaningful progress on the important issue of corporate average fuel economy standards for our Nation's vehicles. We had an opportunity before us to alleviate threats to our national energy and economic security posed by our dependence on imported oil. Nonetheless, it is important that we make progress today in this particular area and make sure that we make a renewable standard an important part of this legislation. The renewable portfolio standard is one of the thresholds that will determine whether the Senate really does create an energy policy that sets itself apart from the 19th century focus of digging, burning, and drilling and focuses more importantly on these 21st century technologies. Now is the time to enact an energy policy that will help us meet these goals. A strong renewable portfolio standard will encourage use of renewable sources and reduce harmful air and water pollution from coal and fossil fuels. It will help ensure a sustainable, secure energy supply and protect our environment for future generations. It will create the investment, income, and jobs in our communities, especially our rural areas. These are the characteristics that I think should be part of our 21st century energy policy. I ask my colleagues to support a strong renewable portfolio standard and, most importantly, oppose any efforts to strip from this bill or in any way undermine this measure which I believe is critical. I urge my colleagues to vote against the Kyl amendment and to vote instead for a strong renewable portfolio standard. I yield the floor.

Ms. CANTWELL

Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the Girl Scouts on their 90th anniversary celebration which took place on March 12, 2002. The first Girl Scout meeting took place in Savannah, GA on March 12, 1912 when Juliette Gordon Low gathered eighteen girls together. Ninety years later, with 3.7 million members, the organization continues to offer girls of all ages, races and socio-economic backgrounds the opportunity to grow, develop friendships, challenge themselves, and gain valuable life experiences. There are 40,000 Girl Scouts in my home state of Washington. These girls are among millions nationwide who are preparing themselves to be future leaders. By examining high-tech careers, developing money management skills, participating in the arts and sports, and learning about other cultures, Girl Scouts are making themselves well rounded individuals who will no doubtedly lead our country to great things in the years to come. Girl Scouts serve to better our environment, our community and our country. I would like to highlight the accomplishments of one of my constituents, Girl Scout Katie Grimes. Katie is one of ten women to receive the National Women of Distinction Award which recognizes women who have demonstrated enormous courage and strength. Katie, using many of the skills she developed in the Girl Scouts, founded the Federal Way Autism Support Group in Federal Way. Katie, who herself is autistic, is well aware of the acute needs of autistic individuals and their families and worked diligently to establish the first support group in her community. I am pleased that the Federal Way Autism Support Group now supports over ninety families in the area and I am hopeful that Katie's organization will serve as a national model to provide comfort and assistance to the thousands of people who are afflicted with autism. I was thrilled to have been invited by my State Girl Scouts Councils to join in the first Honorary Congressional Girl Scout Troop. I am pleased to join my female colleagues, Representatives Jo Ann Emerson and Ellen Tauscher, and Senators Hutchison and Mikulski as a member of this troop. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Troop Capitol Hill, and Girl Scout troops across the country to identify the many challenges facing girls and young women today and ways we can assist them to overcome these obstacles. Again, I wish to congratulate the Girl Scouts on their 90th anniversary milestone and thank them for the important and valuable work that they continue to do.