Dianne Feinstein

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I move to table the Reid amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, over the past few days and weeks the drumbeat for war against Iraq has been rising in both volume and tempo. I rise today to express my concern, and to urge President Bush to proceed with care and prudence. At a minimum: the United States must first exhaust every diplomatic solution that might avoid war, with war seen as a last resort; the United States must assure sufficient international support, similar to the coalition that made the Gulf War viable; and, the administration must fully consult with Congress, which has a significant constitutional obligation in this matter, and receive proper authorization. Let me be clear: There is little question that Iraq poses a grave risk to the United States and our friends and allies. How to deal with Iraq remains, as it has for over a decade, one of the top foreign policy priorities for the United States. At this point we can not and should not lose sight of the fact that we still have considerable work to do in Afghanistan. Rushing precipitously towards another military confrontation, unless the need is imminent, would not be prudent. We are all aware of the nature of the threat: Iraq under Saddam Hussein seeks to develop WMD, has used these weapons against its own people, has invaded its neighbors and threatened others in the region with its missiles. And we are all well aware that Iraq, having agreed to United Nations inspectors after its defeat in the Gulf War a decade ago, banned them in 1998. For 4 years the international community has had no access to Iraq and no ability to inspect its weapons facilities. The administration believes Iraq is continuing to develop chemical and biological weapons, and is seeking nuclear weapons. As a member of the Intelligence Committee I believe that the administration is correct in this assessment. And the administration has argued that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction must be dismantled before President Saddam Hussein forms an alliance with Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. It is critical, therefore, that the United States, through the United Nations, seek additional inspections, under a ``go anywhere, anytime'' inspection regime, to provide Iraq with the opportunity, one last time, to either work with the international community on this issue or, by its refusal, admit guilt and face the consequences. I also believe that it is critical that, should an imminent threat require U.S. action, that the Administration come to Congress to seek its judgment and assent. The resolution authorizing the use of force against the September 11 attackers provides the President authority to take military action only against those groups, individuals, or nations who aided in the September 11 attacks, or harbored those involved. It states: ``The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.'' On its face, then, this resolution is both narrow and specific, in that it applies only to the September 11 attacks. In order to take action against Iraq under this resolution, the President must determine both that Iraq has harbored any Al Qaeda members, or anyone else who aided in the September 11 attacks, and that such an attack would ``prevent any future acts of international terrorism,'' as also required by the resolution. On the other hand, if the President attacks Iraq simply to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, which may be a justified action under certain circumstances, this resolution does not provide the authority for such an attack. Iraq's WMD program, if not directly linked to the September 11 attacks, is a separate issue not covered by the September resolution. In such a circumstance the President would need to, must, seek an additional authorizing resolution from Congress. I was pleased to see that Secretary of State Powell has indicated President Bush will fully consult with Congress before any military action is taken against Iraq. It is imperative that we comply with the provisions of the War Powers Resolution, a joint legislative act that will ensure: ``The collective judgment of both Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States armed forces into hostilities.'' Given the gravity of placing potentially large numbers of America's forces in harm's way, I think anything less than such a ``collective judgment'' would tarnish the sacred trust our people have in their government. As our colleague Senator Byrd wrote in The New York Times earlier this week: ``The Constitution states that the President shall be commander in chief, but it is Congress that has the constitutional authority to provide for the common defense and general welfare, raise armies, and to declare war. In other words, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to weigh in on war-related policy decisions.'' The challenges in taking action against Iraq underscore the need for the United States to work with our friends and allies in the region and elsewhere if we are to take effective action against Iraq. The administration has made great strides in creating as wide an international coalition as possible for action against terror and terrorists, it must do likewise for any action against Iraq. In contemplating any such action against Iraq, we must consult with allies and build the kind of coalition that supported our efforts in the Gulf War, especially those countries whose peoples and governments are bound to be affected by such an undertaking. We should not take action against Iraq until both we, the American people and our regional partners, are convinced of the reasons for so doing and that there is a clear mission and goal in mind. The United States must also consider carefully the consequences of precipitous action. Can we assure our regional partners that our actions will not involve the de-stabilization of the region? Might unilateral unsupported action against Iraq result in attacks against close allies such as Israel or protests against regional leaders in Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Jordan? Following any military action, are we prepared militarily and financially to remain in the region until Saddam is removed, the people of Iraq are free, and a viable democratic government is in place? These are complex questions to which there may be no easy answers. But they are questions that must be addressed before we take any action if those actions are to be successful and the results, enduring. If this matter is not handled properly, there is a profound risk that the Middle East will be further destabilized, and place U.S. interests in the region and in the war against terrorism in jeopardy. None of us has the wisdom or foresight to see where this war will lead us, how long it will last, or when it will end. But we are all foursquare in our determination that we, and all civilized peoples, succeed. I offer my thoughts and comments today not as a criticism of the administration, but rather because I feel that we have a deep obligation to make sure that as we proceed with this endeavor we do so with thoughtfulness, not afraid to ask the tough questions that must be asked or address the issues that must be addressed, and with the unity of purpose that will guarantee our success.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to express my concern and dismay at the news of yet another suicide bombing in Jerusalem. My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims and their families. Israel, a democratic state and a staunch friend and ally of the United States, has a simple desire that all sovereign nations share: that it may live in peace within secure and stable borders, free from the terror and senseless acts of violence. I condemn this terrorism and those who carry it out. How many more innocent lives must be lost before Chairman Arafat takes decisive and concerted action to reign in the terrorists and put an end to their brutal campaign? He made a commitment at Oslo to settle the differences between Palestinians and Israelis peacefully and he must live up to that pledge. I am pleased that President Bush has sent General Zinni back to the Middle East to broker a cease-fire and get both sides to adhere to the Tenet Plan. To put it mildly, he has a long road ahead of him and there is a lot of work to be done. Three articles discuss the situation in the Middle East: one by Washington Times columnist Mona Charon, another by Libby Werthan from the Nashville Jewish paper, the Observer, and finally an article by Naomi Regan called ``Living in Parallel Universe.'' Each article in its own way describes some of the pain, anguish, and despair that Israelis feel over the continuing acts of violence and the collapse of the peace process. I urge my colleagues to read these articles and take their message to heart. Israel wants peace. Israel needs peace. Israel deserves peace. I hope the day will come when I will not have to come to the Senate floor to condemn yet another bombing. Enough is enough. I urge General Zinni and the administration to do all that they can to help bring about an end the violence and the resumption of peace talks. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record the articles I cited.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 2356, the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. The momentum for the bill is building. The President has indicated that he is inclined to sign this bill. We could be on the brink of enacting the first significant campaign reforms in a generation. I would like to make a couple of observations: First, I want to salute the sponsors of S. 27, the Senate companion measure, Senators McCain and Feingold. We are considering this bill only because of the sheer force of their collective will. They have suffered innumerable set-backs pushing for this legislation over the past several years. But they never got discouraged; they never let up. Their dedication to this cause has been extraordinary. Second, numerous public opinion polls have indicated that the American people overwhelmingly support campaign reform, but do not rank the issue as a priority. I think that's because they have grown discouraged about the likelihood of Congress passing such reform. Maybe, just maybe, we will show the American people that we are capable of beating the odds, of coming together and doing something difficult. House Resolution 2356, the ``Shays-Meehan'' bill, is sufficiently similar to S. 27 that Senators who support campaign finance reform ought to have no hesitation voting for final passage. Most importantly, both bills get so-called ``soft money'' out of Federal elections. The bill we are about to pass prohibits all soft money contributions from corporations, labor unions, and individuals to the national political parties or candidates for Federal office. Furthermore, State political parties that are permitted under State law to collect these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on any activities relating to a Federal election. The soft money ban is the most significant, and necessary, campaign finance reform we can make. Soft money threatens to overwhelm our system and the public's confidence in its integrity. In 1988, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate for President, and Vice President Bush, the Republican candidate, raised a total of $45 million in unregulated soft money donations. Just 8 years later, President Clinton raised $124 million and the Republican candidate for President, former Senator Dole, raised $138 million. In the 1999-2000 election cycle, Democrats raised $245 million, and Republicans raised just under $250 million. One of the very biggest soft money donors during the 1999-2000 cycle was Enron. In its 1976 ruling in Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld limits on so-called ``hard money'' campaign contributions. The Court argued that such contributions, unregulated, could lead to corruption through quid pro quo relationships, or at least the appearance of corruption, which is also harmful to a democracy. Well, if we are worried about corruption, or the appearance of corruption, with regard to hard money contributions, which are limited and disclosed, we ought to be doubly worried about soft money contributions, which can be unlimited, and are largely undisclosed. Fortunately, we are about to put an end to soft money contributions. The soft money ban will work because we came to a reasonable compromise with regard to raising some of the existing hard money contribution limits by modest amounts, and indexing those limits for inflation. I am proud that I helped to negotiate that compromise, along with the senior Senator from Tennessee and several other Members from both sides of the aisle. The Senate voted 84-16 to approve the compromise we worked out. Our compromise: doubles the limit on hard money contributions to individual candidates from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election; increases the annual limit on hard money contributions to the national party committees by $5,000, to $25,000; increases the annual aggregate limit on all hard money contributions by $12,500, to $37,500; doubles the amount that the national party committees can contribute to candidates, from $17,500 to $35,000; and indexes these new limits for inflation. So under the Thompson-Feinstein amendment to S. 27, the individual aggregate contribution limit, the amount that can be given to PACs, parties, and candidates combined, is increased from the current $25,000 per year to $37,500 per year. That is a $75,000 per cycle limit, but only $37,500 of that can be given to candidates because all contributions to candidates are charged against the aggregate in the year of the election. The House bill creates a $95,000 per cycle aggregate limit. Of that, $37,500 can be given to candidates and $57,500 can be given to parties and PACs. But to actually max out, an individual must contribute $20,000 of the aggregate to national party committees. This all sounds very complicated, but the net change is that the House bill adds an additional $20,000 per cycle to the aggregate limit, but that increase is reserved for contributions national parties. That is a reasonable change. The hard money increases will reinvigorate individual giving. They will reduce the incessant need for fund-raising. They will give candidates and parties the resources they need to respond to independent campaigns. They will reduce the relative influence of PACs. The Thompson-Feinstein amendment, by increasing the limit on individual and national party committee contributions to Federal candidates, will reduce the need for raising campaign funds from political action committees, PACs. Our amendment, therefore, will reduce the relative influence of PACs, making it easier to replace PAC monies with funds raised from individual donors. The concern about PACs seems unimportant now, compared with the problems that soft money, independent expenditures, and issue advocacy present. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that PACs retain considerable influence in our system. I know that some campaign reform advocates are uncomfortable raising any hard money contribution limits by any amount. I would argue that modest increases are imperative for the simple reason that the current limits were established under the Federal Election Campaign Act, FECA, Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, and haven't been changed since. That was 27 years ago! I have spoken previously about how the costs of campaigning have risen much faster than ordinary inflation over the past 27 years these limits have been frozen. The advantage of modestly lifting some of the limits is that doing so will reduce the time candidates have to spend fund-raising, time better spent with, prospective, constituents. During the 2000 election, my campaign had over 100 fund-raisers. That took time. Time to call. Time to attend. Time to say thanks. And that was time I couldn't spend doing what my constituents want me to do. The task of raising hard money in small contributions unadjusted for inflation is just too daunting, for incumbents and challengers alike. Particularly in the larger States such as California, where extensive television and radio advertising is imperative, it is not uncommon for Senators to begin fund-raising for the next election right after the present one ends and they often find themselves ``dialing for dollars'' instead of attending to other duties. Let's be honest with each other and the American people: campaigning for office will continue to get more and more expensive because television spots are getting more and more expensive. Regrettably, one action the House took during its consideration of H.R. 2356 was to strip the provision Senator Torricelli successfully offered to S. 27 that entitled candidates and political parties to receive the ``lowest unit rate'' for non-preemptible broadcast advertisements within 45 days of a primary election or 60 days of a general election. Under the House bill broadcast television, radio, cable, and satellite providers will be able to continue charging candidates and national committees of political parties higher advertising rates. I am disappointed the House took this action but will support the bill nonetheless. A half of a loaf of bread is better than no bread. Independent campaigns conducted by groups that are accountable to no one threaten to drown out any attempt by candidates or the parties to communicate with voters. Spending on issue advocacy by these groups, according to the Congressional Research Service, rose from $135 million in 1996 to as much as $340 million in 1998. Then it rose again, to $509 million in 2000. Most of this money is used for attack ads that the American people have come to loathe. It is likely that spending on so-called issue advocacy, most of which is thinly disguised electioneering, probably will surpass hard money spending, and very soon. It has already surpassed soft money spending. Clearly, the playing field is being skewed. More and more people are turning to the undisclosed, unregulated independent campaign. The attacks come and no one knows who is actually paying for them. I believe this is unethical. I believe it is unjust. I believe it is unreasonable and it must end. Fortunately, the House kept intact the ``Snowe-Jeffords'' provisions regarding these sham issue ads. The House bill defines ``electioneering communications'' as any broadcast, cable, or satellite communications which refer to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office and are made within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. Anyone making electioneering communications costing $10,000 a year or more must disclose to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, the sponsor of the communication within 24 hours, and the names of those who contribute $1,000 or more to the sponsor within that election cycle. The bill prohibits union or corporate treasury funds from being used for electioneering communications. The bill we are about to pass will staunch the millions of unregulated soft dollars that currently flow into the coffers of our political parties, and replace a modest portion of that money with contributions that are fully regulated and disclosed under the existing provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. People aren't concerned about individual contributions of $1,000, and I don't think they will be concerned about donations of $2,000. No, what concerns people the most about the current system are the checks for $250,000, or $500,000, or even $1 million flowing into political parties. These gigantic contributions are what warp our politics and cause people to lose faith in our Government and they must be halted. They give the appearance of corruption. I represent California, which has more people, 34 million, than 21 other States combined. I just finished my 12th political campaign. For the 4th time in 10 years, I ran statewide. Running for office in California is expensive: I have had to raise more than $55 million in those four campaigns. I can tell you from my experiences over the years that I am committed to campaign reform, and I am heartened that we are about to pass H.R. 256. Is it a perfect bill? No. Will it be subject to challenges in court? Undoubtedly. But I think it is a strong bill and I'm optimistic that it will withstand the courts' scrutiny. And as I said earlier, it is our best chance at reform in a generation. Campaign reform goes to the heart of our democracy. The way we currently finance and conduct our campaigns is a cancer metastasizing throughout the body politic. It discourages people from running for office and it disgusts voters. So they simply tune out, in larger and larger numbers. Discouragement, disgust, frustration, apathy, these feelings don't bolster our democracy, they weaken it. We have an opportunity here, a rare opportunity, to do the right thing and pass H.R. 2356.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., in open session to receive testimony on maximizing fleet presence capability and ship procurement and research and development in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs' Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 10 a.m., for a hearing regarding ``The Federal Workforce: Legislative Proposals for Change.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a nominations hearing on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, in Dirksen room 226 at 10 a.m. Tentative Witness List Panel I: The Honorable Arlen Specter; the Honorable John B. Breaux; the Honorable Robert Bennett; the Honorable Craig Thomas; the Honorable Rick Santorum; the Honorable Mary L. Landrieu; the Honorable Mike Enzi; and the Honorable W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin. Panel II: Terrence L. O'Brien to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Panel III: Lance Africk to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Paul Cassell to the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah; and Legrome Davis to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Children and Families and Committee on Finance. Subcommittee on Family Policy be authorized to meet for a hearing on ``Child Care: Supporting Working Families,'' during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:15 p.m., to hold a business meeting. Agenda The Committee will consider and vote on the following agenda items: Legislation: H.R. 2739, an act to amend Public Law 107-10 to authorize a United States plan to endorse and obtain observer status for Taiwan at the annual summit of the World Health Assembly in May 2002 in Geneva, Switzerland, and for other purposes; and S. Res. 213, a resolution condemning human rights violations in Chechnya and urging a political situation to the conflict. Additional items to be announced. Nominations: Mrs. Emmy B. Simmons, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Administrator (Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade) of the United States Agency for International Development; Mr. Robert B. Holland III, of Texas, to be United States Alternate Executive Director of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a term of 2 years; the Honorable Robert P. Finn, of New York, to be Ambassador to Afghanistan; the Honorable Richard M. Miles, of South Carolina, to be Ambassador to Georgia; the Honorable James W. Pardew, of Arkansas, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Bulgaria; Mr. Peter Terpeluk, Jr., of Pennsylvania, to be Ambassador to Luxembourg; and Mr. Lawrence E. Butler, of Maine, to be Ambassador to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Foreign Service Officer Promotion Lists: FSO Promotion List, Jeffrey Davidow, Ruth Davis, and George Moose, for the personal rank of Career Ambassador in recognition of especially distinguished service over a sustained period, dated December 20, 2001; and FSO Promotion List, Gustavio A. Mejia, dated December 20, 2001.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., on the nomination of VADM Thomas Collins to be commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard and immediately following an Oceans, Atmosphere, and Fisheries Subcommittee on oversight of the U.S. Coast Guard budget.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Accounting and Investor Protection Issues Raised by Enron and Other Public Companies.'' The committee will also vote on the nominations of the Honorable Joanne Johnson, of Iowa, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board; and Ms. Deborah Matz, of New York, to be a member of the National Credit Union Administration Board.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in open and closed session to receive testimony on the worldwide threat to United States interests.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing, entitled ``Mobility, Congestion and Intermodalism,'' to examine fresh ideas on transportation demand, access, mobility, and program flexibility. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, March 19, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to hear testimony on ``Child Care: Supporting Working Families.''

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington. I do not know anyone who has been more concerned about what has been happening with electricity markets than Senator Cantwell. She has really tried to help her constituents and the consumers in this area. I am very pleased she has been in the leadership of this amendment. I particularly thank the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Fitzgerald, for straightening out the record from the perspective of somebody intimately involved in the banking industry. Let me tell you how all of this boils down for me. It is this: Should some parts of this trading community essentially be exempt from any form of transparency, from recordkeeping or from oversight? That is the bottom line. We are not trying to do anything that is horrendous. All we are saying is they should have oversight, they should keep records, and there should be information for the public that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission would find to be nonproprietary. This is, in essence, all we are trying to do. I have a hard time understanding how one has to have a large degree of sophistication in the industry to want to shed the light of day on some of these trades. Maybe California was impacted by these trades and maybe California was not impacted by these trades, but I can tell you this: The price of electricity in California in 1999 was $7 billion. The price the next year was $27 billion. It went up fourfold. Something happened other than the fact there was a huge demand and no supply. There was trading. We saw it with natural gas coming in to California. Natural gas prompts the price of electricity, and when it is $59 a decatherm in southern California and $8 a decatherm in New Mexico, when the cost of transportation from New Mexico to that place in California is only $1, one has to look at what has happened to boost that price way up. So all we are saying is to put it back the way it was before. Give the CFTC jurisdiction. It is being made light of that the CFTC does not support this action. The CFTC has three members. One of the members supports what we are trying to do, and his name is Thomas Erickson. I will quickly read what he says. This amendment would bring transparency to markets and provide Congress and the public with the assurance that no exchange offering energy commodity derivatives transactions would go completely unregulated. Moreover, it would restore to the Federal Government those basic tools necessary to detect and defer fraud and manipulation. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment. That is one member of the regulatory body out of three members to whom we are trying to give this responsibility. So there is nothing nefarious about the amendment. As I pointed out, all members of the FERC support the amendment, as well as the Chairman of the FERC, whose letter I read into the Record. They know something about these matters. They know what derivatives are. They know the transparency and recordkeeping and oversight. Whether there was a carve-out for two or three companies or not, I am not going to comment because I do not know. I do know there is this one narrow exemption whereby all of these online trades go on not in the light of day but in the dark of night, so to speak. Nobody knows what they are. There are no records kept of them. Therefore, whether the CFTC thinks it has some jurisdiction or not does not really make a difference because they cannot go back and look at records of trades, compare them wholesale versus retail prices, and know whether there was any price manipulation or not. So sure, investigate. If there are no records, there is no evidence. Therefore, there is not much that is going to come from the investigation. So all we are trying to say is because this has become a huge, burgeoning online business, subject it to all of the same regulations and oversight that every other part of the trading community has. It does not take a Philadelphia lawyer to understand that. I do think it benefits consumers, I do think it benefits responsible trading, and I do think it benefits a level playing field for everyone who is trading in these markets. I think it provides that level of consumer protection. Some people, say, oh, there is a reason why the NYMEX and the Chicago Board of Trade want it. They want to force everybody on their exchanges. No, not true. If it is easier to trade online, you can trade online, no problem with it, but there should be a record kept of the trades. There should be transparency, and information that the CFTC deems is not proprietary but should be in the public domain can, in fact, be in the public domain, and that, finally, there is some regulatory body that when there is an allegation of fraud would step in. For example, I would like the CFTC to take a look at the California situation, evaluate the record and tell us, was there price manipulation? Was online trading of natural gas manipulated to artificially raise prices? They might try to do it now, but they would have no records on which to base any investigation. Therefore, that is what this amendment is all about. Sure, I know there are people who do not like it. There are people who have tried to obfuscate about it, but is the consumer going to be better off because the light of day is shed on these trades in a market that is billions and billions of dollars? I think so. I cannot understand how anybody feels disadvantaged because there is transparency, there is oversight, or there is recordkeeping that is required in every single level of trading on any market that exists in America today. So if anyone takes the time to read these letters, I think they will find we are doing nothing nefarious. We are simply trying to bring the light of day to provide a record and to provide some regulatory oversight to a huge, burgeoning market. When I talked to Mr. Greenspan, and I did on two occasions, what he was concerned with was financial certainty. What I would say to him is this brings financial certainty. This lets everybody who trades online know there is some regulation. Just as you have regulation with FERC, if you deliver natural gas directly to an entity, if you are trading gas in between the delivery, there also is certainty--a certainty that one must keep a record, a certainty that the record can become public, and a certainty that there is some Federal oversight as there is everywhere else. I see no reason at all why there should be this widespread exemption, particularly at a time when we have seen these prices escalate beyond anyone's expectation. Nobody could think that someone could be selling electricity at $30 a megawatt and overnight have that price go to $300 and then $3,000 without the opportunity for the light of day to be shed on it, and also have some records and some oversight. It is a very simple thing we are doing. It existed before the year 2000. All we are saying is give the CFTC this oversight. It is supported by FERC. It is supported by the New York Merchantile Exchange. It is supported by the Chicago Exchange. It is supported by people who deal in electricity and natural gas, the municipal systems. It may not be supported by the banks that want to run an exchange in this secret way. It may not be supported by some who would like to see this anonymity continue. But if my colleagues believe that light of day is important, then please vote for this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair. To summarize, if the western energy markets over the past 2 years have shown us anything, it is that the light of day and records must be available on all transactions. If the western energy markets and California have shown us anything, it is that there must be Federal oversight. And if what has happened in the last 2 years tells us anything, it is that the trading of these particular commodities should not be in secret. Mr. President, this amendment aims to clear up those three points. It does so. I recognize there is opposition. I recognize the banks oppose it. Why do the banks oppose it? Because they have set up an online trading exchange, the IntercontinentalExchange, to do just what Enron Online did. Dynegy opposes it. Williams opposes it because they are doing the same thing now. There is this burgeoning market of trading up the price of energy in secret. It is wrong. The light of day must be shed on it, and it should be treated as are all other aspects of trades. My cosponsors and I feel very strongly about this. I yield the floor.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise on behalf of Senators Fitzgerald, Cantwell, Corzine, Wyden, Leahy, Boxer, and Durbin in modifying our amendment on energy derivatives. As you know, we discussed this issue on the floor before, and the senior Senator from Texas had some concerns. So we spent a good deal of time talking with him and his staff. We have also kept in touch with our cosponsors. We have agreed on some modifications. There are some modifications that the Senator from Texas sought that the cosponsors and I could not agree to. So this modification represents where we agree and not where we disagree. I begin by explaining two terms in the amendment. The first term is ``a derivative.'' A derivative is a financial instrument traded on or off an exchange, the price of which is directly dependent upon an underlying commodity, such as natural gas or electricity. An ``over- the-counter'' or ``swap'' contract is an agreement whereby a floating price is exchanged for a fixed price over a specified period. It involves no transfer of physical energy, and both parties settle their contractual obligations in cash. Although energy derivatives make up only 4 percent of all derivative transactions, energy swaps make up 80 percent of all energy derivatives. So these are important terms. What our amendment does is subject electronic exchanges, such as Enron Online, Dynegydirect, and IntercontinentalExchange--these exchanges trade energy derivatives--to the similar oversight reporting and capital requirements as other exchanges, such as the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the New York Mercantile Exchange, and the Chicago Board of Trade. However, since the vast majority of energy derivative transactions are over the counter, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has insufficient authority, at present, to investigate and prevent fraud and price manipulation, and parties making these trades are not required to keep records of their trades. In other words, there is no transparency. There is no record and there is no oversight of these particular trades. So our amendment simply requires these parties to keep records of their transactions, which is what most companies do in any event. If it turns out there is a fraud allegation, the CFTC will have a record to review. This is the same fraud and manipulation authority the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has for every other commodity and it is the same authority they had until Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act in 2000. That act exempted energy and metals trading from regulatory oversight, and excluded it completely if the trade was done electronically. Before this act, it was all included. Following the act, it was excluded. That was around June of 2000. The problem and why we need this legislation: Presently, energy transactions--those about which I am not speaking, but the other energy transactions--are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when there is actually a delivery of the energy commodity. What do I mean? If I buy natural gas from you, and you deliver that natural gas to me, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has the authority to ensure that this transaction is both transparent and reasonably priced. In other words, FERC has regulatory authority when the energy is actually delivered. However, energy transactions have become increasingly complex over the past decade. So, today, energy transactions do not always result in a direct delivery, and thus a giant loophole has opened where there is no transparency, no records, and no oversight. And that is not when I sell it to you to deliver it but when I sell it to you and you sell it to somebody else, who sells it to somebody else, who sells it to somebody else, and then it is delivered. Those interim trades are in no way, shape, or form transparent. They are done in secret. There is no oversight and there is no record. So I can purchase from you a derivatives contract, which is a promise that you will deliver natural gas to me at some point in the future. I may never need to physically own that gas, so I can at a small profit sell that gas to someone, who can then turn around and sell it yet to someone else, and so on and so forth, as I have just pointed out. The promise of a gas delivery can literally change hands dozens of times before the commodity is ever delivered. Even then, it may never get delivered if the spot market price is lower than the future price that comes due on that day. That is what I meant about saying it is very complicated. In fact, about 90 percent of the energy trades represent purely financial transactions, not regulated by either the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or the CFTC. So as long as there is no delivery, there is no price transparency. We do not know the price or the terms for 90 percent of the energy transactions. Let me repeat that. Today, no one knows the price or the terms for 90 percent of the energy transactions. Again, this lack of transparency and oversight only applies to energy. It does not apply if you are selling wheat or pork bellies or any other tangible commodity. As I said, there is a very big loophole here. What we seek to do is simply close that loophole. How did this happen? The answer is, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, signed into law in 2000, exempted energy and minerals trading from regulatory oversight and also exempted electronic trading platforms from oversight. That is the online trading that occurs. In a sense, what the legislation did was set up two different systems: treating electronic trading platforms differently from other platforms, and treating energy commodities different from other commodities. Up until 2000, energy derivative transactions were regulated in a similar fashion to other transactions, and all energy transactions were subject to antifraud and antimanipulation oversight. Electronic trading platforms were treated like all other platforms. These were the standards that were in place until June of 2000. Up until that time, if a gas or electricity commodity was delivered, FERC had oversight, and there was transparency; if there was not delivery, the CFTC had the authority. So the loophole arose just 2 years ago. At the time of the 2000 legislation, no one knew how the exemptions would affect the energy market. It was a new market. They wanted to see growth. So they kind of unleashed it and said: All this can go on without the light of day. We have a much better idea today because of what we have learned since then. It didn't take long for Enron Online and others in the energy sector to take advantage of this new freedom--and, to an extent, secrecy--by trading energy derivatives absent any regulatory oversight or transparency. Thus, after the 2000 legislation was enacted, Enron Online began to trade energy derivatives bilaterally, over the counter, in a one-to-one transaction, without being subject to any regulatory oversight whatsoever. It should not surprise anyone that, without transparency, prices went right up. Was Enron and its energy derivatives trading arm, Enron Online, the sole reason California and the West had an energy crisis 18 months ago? Of course not. Was it a contributing factor to the crisis? I believe it was. Unfortunately, because of the energy exemptions in the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act, which took away the CFTC's authority to investigate, we may never know for sure since there are no records. For me, this issue comes down to some fundamental questions. Why shouldn't there be transparency in the energy market? Why should the CFTC not have antifraud, antimanipulation authority when there is fraud and manipulation in the market? And why shouldn't California's energy ratepayers and customers and consumers and ratepayers in other States enjoy the same CFTC protections as ranchers and farmers do today? The modification of our amendment results from the discussions my cosponsors and I had with Senator Phil Gramm, who approached us to express his concern that our bill could inadvertently impact financial derivatives. We made several changes to accommodate Senator Gramm's concerns, and we were hopeful we could reach agreement with him. However, there are four additional points where we did not reach agreement: exempting energy swaps from CFTC antifraud and antimanipulation authority; deleting all public price-transparency requirements; exempting all electronic exchanges from requirements that they maintain sufficient capital to carry out their operations, based on risk; and finally, eliminating metal derivatives from oversight. As I said before, energy swaps--this is a point of contention between us--comprise as much as 80 percent of energy derivatives transactions so this change would have taken the teeth out of our amendment. We consulted with our cosponsors. They did not want to agree to it. I believe Senator Fitzgerald is coming to the Chamber to speak to this. Additionally, our amendment states that electronic trading forums should hold capital commensurate with the risk, which seems a reasonable expectation to me. The public can already access information from nonelectronic exchanges simply by picking up the business section of a daily newspaper. I don't understand the rationale for wanting to limit the public's access to data on electronic exchanges. There is ample evidence that fraud and manipulation can occur and have already occurred in the metal sector. This was borne out by several scandals over the past decade, including the 1996 Sumitomo case. In Sumitomo, it was found that U.S. consumers were overcharged $2.5 billion because of a Japanese company's manipulation of the copper markets. These were changes that we simply could not agree to. Why do my cosponsors and I feel so strongly about the need to pass this amendment? First, the debate is nothing new. In November of 1999, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Treasury, the SEC, and the CFTC issued a report on derivatives titled ``Over the Counter Derivative Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act, A Report of the President's Working Group on Financial Markets.'' This report was signed by the Federal Reserve Chairman, the then-Secretary of Treasury, the then-SEC Chairman, and the then-CFTC Chairman. What the report found was the case had not been made that energy or other tangible commodities should be exempted from CFTC oversight. In fact, the report found that because of the immaturity of the energy market, the lack of liquidity in the market and finite supplies in energy markets, energy markets were more susceptible to manipulation than the deep and liquid financial markets. Recent history has certainly borne that to be correct. These commodities are more subject to manipulation. On June 21, 2000, shortly after the President's working group issued its report, the Banking Committee and Agriculture Committee held a hearing on the report and Senator Lugar's Commodity Futures Modernization Act. Let me read from the committee report: The Commission has reservations about the bill's exclusions of OTC derivatives from the Commodities Exchange Act. On this point the bill diverges from the recommendations of the President's Working Group, which limited the proposed exclusions to financial derivatives. The Commission believes the distinction drawn by the Working Group between financial (nontangible) and non-financial transactions was a sound one and respectfully urges the Committees to give weight to that distinction. Eight days later, Chairman Lugar marked up his CFMA bill in conference. This is what he had to say: The Chairman's Mark also addresses concerns regarding this bill's exclusion of institutional energy transactions from the act. Our bill no longer excludes those transactions from the act. With the resolution of this provision, the CFTC has indicated it will fully support our legislation. Much to his credit, Chairman Lugar eliminated the exemption for energy transactions to accommodate the CFTC and the President's working groups. But--and this is a big ``but''--Enron and others lobbied in the House and, as it turned out, this was never reflected in the final provision that passed Congress as part of a much bigger bill at the end of the 106th Congress. There is already a legislative history. More recently, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on January 29 on energy derivative trading, where CFTC Chairman Jim Newsome and FERC Chairman Pat Wood both testified and explained the regulatory burdens that prevent them from fully investigating Enron Online. Let me be candid; I am truly amazed at the opposition to this amendment. Why should anyone be able to set up an online trading platform without any reporting, disclosure, or capital requirements and without any regulatory oversight whatsoever? Why should companies that are engaging in an over-the-counter transaction not have to keep a record of this transaction? Everyone else does. And why, if there is fraud or market manipulation, should there not be a regulatory agency that can investigate and cite wrongdoing? What I cannot understand is how this amendment is somehow antibusiness. On the contrary, the amendment is all about making markets work. I call your attention to the recently released report by the Cambridge Energy Research Associates Study and Accenture titled ``Energy Restructuring at a Crossroads, Creating Workable Competitive Power Markets.'' The report cites 12 recommendations for making energy markets function effectively, including having the CFTC expand its oversight to include energy derivative trading, as it did before 2000. The report recognizes that transparency, disclosure, and reporting requirements instill confidence in markets and provide assurances for investors that there will not be fraud and manipulation. This is also why the amendment is supported by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the New York Mercantile Exchange, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, Mid-America Energy Holding Company, PG&E, and Southern California Edison. They have to pay the higher prices for energy if it is traded back and forth. They want to know if these trades increase prices for the purposes of manipulation. Calpine, the American Public Gas Association, the American Public Power Association, the Texas Independent Producers and Royalty Association, the California Municipal Utilities Association, the Consumers Union, the Consumer Federation of America, the Derivatives Institute, U.S. PIRG, the Transmission Access Policy Study Group, and all four FERC Commissioners. I would like to read into the Record the letter from the Chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Mr. Pat Wood, III, dated March 7: Thank you for calling to my attention your proposed amendment to clarify federal oversight of financial transactions involving energy commodities. Your amendment would clarify that these transactions are within the jurisdiction of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, thus revoking current exemption for such transactions under the Commodity Exchange Act and extending the Act to apply comprehensively to financial transactions based on energy commodities. From our first meeting last Spring, you know how strongly I feel about customers having access to the broadest range of useful market information. Information on financial as well as physical transactions is a key part of market transparency. Billions of dollars are now at stake in these markets. The consequences of a major participant's collapse are illustrated by the Enron bankruptcy. Federal oversight of such trading is appropriate. Your amendment can ensure greater transparency in these markets, and this transparency can help provide an early warning signal to those charged with protecting the public interest. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print other letters in the Record.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to my amendment.

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

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, history has shown us that a Nation dedicated to equal rights for women and girls is a more prosperous Nation, a healthier Nation, a more educated Nation, a more just Nation, a more peaceful Nation, and a more democratic Nation. Today I rise once again to add my voice and stand in solidarity with women and girls around the world in their struggle for basic human rights. I rise to commemorate March 8, 2002, International Women's Day. Until the entire world recognizes the simple fact expressed by my friend and colleague, Senator Clinton, that ``women's rights are human rights'' we must continue to raise awareness about the plight of women and girls around the world and in our own country. Indeed, while I have been encouraged by the gains made since the United Nations first designated March 8 as International Women's Day in 1975, there is still a great deal of work ahead of us and I would like to take this time to discuss several critical issues that I believe are vital to the lives of women and girls and require U.S. leadership: international family planning assistance, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, rape as an instrument of war, and the plight of women in Afghanistan. Each of us, I believe, understands very well the issue of United States assistance to international family planning organizations. There have been few issues in recent years that have been more debated, with people of good intentions on both sides of the issue. Consequently, I was dismayed that the Bush Administration considered withholding the $34 million U.S. contribution to the United Nations Population Fund, UNFPA, an amount allocated to it by law and, after months of negotiations, and with bipartisan support. I wrote to President Bush urging him not to withhold the funds as such a decision would be a serious mistake and a blow to U.S. leadership in combating overpopulation. You simply cannot deny the importance of family planning assistance, especially for the very poor. There are now more than 6 billion people on this Earth. The United Nations estimates this figure could be 12 billion by the year 2050. Almost all of this growth will occur in the places least able to bear up under the pressures of massive population increases. The brunt will be in developing countries lacking the resources needed to provide basic health or education services. Let us strive to ensure that women have access to the educational and medical resources they need to control their reproductive destinies and their health so that they will be able to better their own lives and the lives of their families Everyone should recognize that international family planning programs reduce poverty, improve health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing of their children. We must counter the attacks made by the anti-choice wing of the Republican party in recent years and make it perfectly clear that no U.S. international family planning funds are spent on international abortion. It is worth noting that the Department of State recognized the vital role of the UNFPA in family planning assistance and provided $600,000 to the Fund for sanitary supplies, clean undergarments, and emergency infant delivery kits for Afghan refugees in Iran, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan. This is just one of many examples of UNFPA's commitment to bettering the lives of women and children around the world. Since the debate is unlikely to end, we must work harder to ensure that the United States reclaims its leadership role on international family planning and reproductive issues. On International Women's Day, I urge my colleagues to support full funding for the UNFPA and other international family planning programs. Another year has gone by and I am saddened and disappointed to note that the Senate still has not acted on the Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. It has been more than twenty years since the United States actively participated in drafting the Convention and President Carter signed it on July 17, 1980. Yet, we are still waiting for the United States, the lone superpower and champion of democracy and human rights, to take a stand for the rights of women and girls and ratify the convention. Notably absent from the list of 161 countries who have ratified the convention, the United States joins a rather dubious club of non- ratifiers: Iran, North Korea, and Sudan. Surely this is not the company we want to keep. Surely we want to be known as a leader when it comes to defending the human rights of women and girl who are unable to defend themselves. Do we want to be the lone democracy not to ratify? Do we want to watch China, the People's Republic of Laos, and Iraq, countries we regularly censure for human rights abuses and who have either signed or agreed in principle, pass us by? There is no reasonable justification for our failure to act. Is the convention a technically demanding agreement requiring years of study and investigation? Does it ask the United States to go far beyond our own goals and ideals? Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is what the convention says: It requires States to take all appropriate steps to eliminate discrimination against women in political and public life, law, education, employment, health care, commercial transactions, and domestic relations. Nothing more, nothing less. Simplicity is the hallmark of this agreement. Every day that goes by without ratification, we further risk losing our moral right to lead in the human rights revolution. By ratifying the convention, we will demonstrate our commitment to promoting equality and to protecting women's rights throughout the world. By ratifying the convention, we will send a strong message to the international community that the U.S. understands the problems posed by discrimination against women, and we will not abide by it. By ratifying the convention, we reestablish our credentials as a leader on human rights and women's rights. As we commemorate International Women's Day, I call on my colleagues in the Senate to move forward and ratify the convention on discrimination against women. Eliminating the use of rape as an instrument of war must be a high priority for the United States and the international community. It is an issue that continues to cause me great concern. We have seen in recent years how rape has moved from being an isolated by-product of war to a tool used to advance war aims. In Bosnia, Rwanda, and East Timor soldiers and militiamen used rape on a organized, systematic, and sustained basis to further their goal of ethnic cleansing. In some cases, women were kidnaped, interned in camps and houses, forced to do labor, and subjected frequent rape and sexual assault. Something had to be done and so I was pleased that the United Nations, in setting up the war crime tribunals for the Balkans and Rwanda, recognized rape as a war crime and a crime against humanity. Finally, on February 22, 2001, following a period of inaction when it appeared that those indicted for perpetrating these crimes would not be brought to justice, the international tribunal in The Hague sentenced three Bosnian Serbs to prison for rape during the Bosnian war. I was very pleased the court took this step but we still have a long ways to go. Estimates are that up to 20,000 women in Yugoslavia were systematically raped as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. Many perpetrators still remain at large. Nevertheless, the court has stated loud and clear that those who use rape as an instrument of war will no longer be able to escape justice. They will be arrested, tried, and convicted. As Judge Florence Mumba of Zambia stated, ``Lawless opportunists should expect no mercy, no matter how low their position in the chain of command may be.'' I commend the victims who courageously came forward to confront their attackers and offer testimony that helped lead to the convictions. I am hopeful more will come forward. On International Women's Day, I urge the administration and the international community to join me in continuing the fight to end the practice of rape as an instrument of war, and to pursue justice for its victims. For years when I addressed the condition of women and girls in Afghanistan, I did so with a sense of sadness, anger, and despair. I now do so with a sense of optimism, hope, and determination. One of the great stories of our campaign against terrorism is the liberation of the women and girls of Afghanistan from the chains imposed on them by the Taliban regime. We all know the story of how women and girls were treated: banned from work and school, confined to their homes behind darkened windows, and required to wear full-length veils, or burka, and to be accompanied by a male relative when in public. Now, the women of Afghanistan, who have suffered under brutal regimes and seen their families destroyed by war, are beginning to leave their homes without fear, earn a living, receive desperately needed medical attention, get an education, and participate in public life. I am especially pleased that Afghanistan's interim leader, Hamid Karzai, picked two women to serve in his Cabinet. It is a welcome change from the past and a step toward equal rights for all Afghans. Clearly, there is much work to be done to improve the lives of women and girls in Afghanistan and the United States must be actively involved in that endeavor. I was proud to co-sponsor S. 1573, the ``Afghan Women and Children Relief Act of 2001,'' which authorized the President to provide educational and health care assistance for the women and children living in Afghanistan and as refugees in neighboring countries. President Bush signed the bill into law on December 12, 2001. This is the first step of a long journey and I urge my colleagues to stay the course and support additional assistance in the coming years ahead. On International Women's Day, let us reaffirm our commitment to a better future for the women and girls of Afghanistan. We must let them know that they are no longer alone, that we will stand by their side, and we will not abandon them again. We must debate and ratify the convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. We must rededicate ourselves and our resources to international family planning programs. We must not ignore the use of rape as an instrument of war. We must help the women and girls of Afghanistan realize their hopes and dreams. We cannot afford to remain silent. We cannot afford to place women's rights on a second tier of concern of U.S. foreign policy. On International Women's Day, the United States and the international community must take a strong stand and issue a clear warning to those who attempt to rob women of basic rights that the world's governments will no longer ignore these abuses, or allow them to continue without repercussion.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, if you were to walk past the driveway at 222 West Micheltorena Street in Santa Barbara, California today you would see a makeshift memorial of flowers and candles. On a tree nearby, you would also see a note that reads, ``United We Stand. Never be forgotten. Always to be loved. A symbol of silence that needs to be broken.'' That memorial has been erected outside the home of Clinton Scott Risetter, 37, the victim of a hate crime. On February 24, 2002, Clint Risetter awoke in his apartment engulfed in flames and then tried to escape as he was burning. When firefighters arrived, they found him dead on his patio. Two days later, Martin Thomas Hartmann walked into the Santa Barbara Police Department and admitted to entering Clint's apartment, pouring gasoline on him as he slept, and then setting him on fire. Martin Hartmann had known Clint for several months but had learned just recently that Clint was gay. He told police about his hatred toward gays and how he ``. . . decided to put [Clint] out of his misery,'' because he was gay. He believed that he was doing the right thing and that Clint deserved to die. The note on the tree outside Clint Risetter's apartment expresses not only the views of its author, but also the views of the more than 500 people that joined together Monday night in Santa Barbara to light candles in a vigil for Clint. One of the vigil's attendees, Russ Chaffin, said, ``I can't be silent. This is my community. I cannot stand it that something like this could happen in my community.'' I simply cannot stand silent when such a violent act is committed against an innocent person. I was deeply saddened and disturbed to hear the horrific details of Clint's death. It's hard for me to imagine a more heinous act of hatred than to set another human being on fire. Unfortunately, Clint's death is characteristic of many hate crimes in America; where an attacker repeatedly beats, stabs or severely burns his victim as if he is removing whatever it is he hates out of the person. And the attacker feels justified in doing so, as if he is doing a great service to humanity by killing the person. In California, I have seen, first-hand, the devastating impact hate crimes have on victims, their families and their communities. A hate crime divides neighborhoods and breeds a sense of mistrust and fear within a community, just like it has in Santa Barbara. This is why I have long supported legislation aimed at protecting citizens from crimes based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, disability, or sexual orientation. According to the FBI's latest statistics, hate crimes based on sexual orientation rose every year between 1994 and 2000. Yet, current Federal hate crimes law does not include crimes against others because of sexual orientation. It only covers crimes motivated by bias on the basis of race, color, religion or national origin. The current law also limits Federal hate crime prosecutions to instances in which the victim was targeted because he or she was exercising one of six narrowly defined federally-protected activities, such as serving on a jury, voting, attending a public school, eating at a restaurant or lodging at a hotel. The limitations of current law prevent it from reaching many cases where individuals are killed or injured by just walking down the street, or, as we have now seen, even sleeping in their own homes. It does not extend basic civil rights protections to every American, only to a few and under certain circumstances. Updating the current law would not provide special rights, it would ensure equal protection. ``The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001,'' legislation of which I am an original cosponsor, would expand current Federal protections against hate crimes based on race, color, religion, and national origin; amend the criminal code to cover hate crimes based on gender, disability, and sexual orientation; authorize grants for State and local programs designed to combat and prevent hate crimes; and enable the federal government to assist State and local law enforcement in investigating and prosecuting hate crimes. Final passage of ``The Local Law Enforcement Act of 2001,'' is long overdue. It is necessary for the safety and well being of millions of Americans. No American should have to live in fear because of his or her disability. No American should be afraid to walk down the street for fear of a gender-motivated attack. And certainly, no American should be afraid to sleep in their own home because of his or her sexual orientation. We have had strong bipartisan support for this legislation in the past, and it continues to receive bipartisan support. We just have not been able to get it to the President's desk for his consideration. Today, I ask all of my colleagues to work to ensure that this legislation is not simply supported, but actually gets passed and signed into law. Let's send a signal to Clint Risetter's family, and to all Americans, that our nation will no longer turn a blind eye to hate crimes in this country.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator from Illinois who is next under the unanimous consent agreement will yield for just a second, I thank Senator Cantwell. She also is on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. She also has been very concerned, very diligent, working very hard at what has been a very difficult onion to peel. I am very grateful for her leadership. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Corzine as an original cosponsor. I believe he wants to speak to the amendment.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, before Senator Cantwell is recognized, I ask unanimous consent Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois be added as an original cosponsor, and that he be called on to speak directly following Senator Cantwell.

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. This letter is from the MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company out of Omaha, NE: I am writing in support of your effort to ensure that there is transparency and appropriate Federal oversight of energies futures trading markets. As I testified before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last month-- This is the chairman and CEO-- I have long been concerned that the type of exchange run by Enron before its collapse offered opportunities for manipulation. Enron was the largest buyer, the largest seller and operator of an unregulated exchange. In view of the revelations of the last several months regarding Enron, the unregulated nature of these markets has raised serious concerns regarding the ability of the Federal Government to ensure that energy trading and futures markets are operating in the interest of the public and market participants. I ask unanimous consent that this letter, and also a similar letter from PG&E, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.