Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, the Energy Policy Act that the Senate has been debating contains a number of strategies to reduce America's dependence on foreign oil and to improve the environment, but it does omit a key technology that can help this country achieve these critically important goals. That technology is the hybrid electric vehicle. The Senate has heard a lot about hybrids over the last few weeks, and, last week saw a poster of a red SUV--a hybrid vehicle that Ford is developing. Hybrids are coming of age. Anyone who has questions about their benefits can ask our colleague, Senator Bennett from Utah, who does in fact, drive a hybrid vehicle. These vehicles can achieve fuel efficiencies that are more than twice the current CAFE standard. Their greenhouse gas emissions are only one- third to one-half of those from conventional vehicles; and for other pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, they can meet the country's highest emission standards, those set by the State of California. The overall energy efficiency of hybrid vehicles is more than double of any available alternative fuel vehicle. But the result of this country's current energy policy is that vehicles rated at even 70 miles per gallon are disqualified as counting toward energy efficiency fleet requirements just because they do not use alternative fuels. But, clearly, they more than fulfill the spirit of a modern energy policy that moves this country towards the critical goal of energy independence. When it comes to alternative fuel, the Energy Policy Act of 1992 is all windup and no pitch. It requires fleet administrators to buy alternative fuel vehicles, but it does not require them to use alternative fuels. In many States, even the best-intentioned fleet administrators have real trouble finding enough alternative fuel. That certainly has been true in my home State of Oregon. Out of 178,000 fuel stations across the country, only 200 now provide alternative fuel. That is less than one-tenth of 1 percent of our filling stations. The result is, many alternative fuel vehicles are being operated with gasoline, which completely undermines this country's goal of reducing the use of petroleum. The energy bill before us, wisely, will close that loophole by requiring alternative fuel vehicles to actually use alternative fuels. If passed, by September of next year, 2003, only 50 percent of the fuel that fleets use in their alternative fuel vehicles could be gasoline. Though the Nation's alternative fuel infrastructure is expanding, the question still remains: What about those States that still lack enough stations where fuel can be purchased? Are they supposed to just let those vehicles sit unused in their parking lots? The amendment I offer today, with Senator Murkowski, Senator Bennett, and my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, will provide fleet administrators with the flexibility to choose between alternative fuel vehicles and hybrid vehicles. Like the Energy Tax Incentives Act reported by the Finance Committee, it contains a sliding scale that allows partial credit for hybrid vehicles based on how good their fuel economy is and how much power they have. For instance, if a hybrid car or light truck averages 2\1/2\ times the fuel economy of a similar vehicle in its weight class, it could earn credit worth up to 50 percent of the purchase of an alternative fuel vehicle. Then, based on how much power it has available, it could earn additional credit. So significant credit would only be given to the best performers. To illustrate what this means, for a hybrid vehicle to get one-half the credit of a 3,500-pound alternative fuel vehicle that averages 21 miles per gallon in the city, that hybrid would have to average over 53 miles per gallon. It is clear what a huge reduction in petroleum use this proposal could mean. The amendment is supported by a broad range of interests, including the National Association of Fleet Administrators, the National Association of State Energy Officers, Toyota Motor of North America, and the National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association. I thank my colleagues, particularly Senator Murkowski, Senator Bennett, and Senator Smith of Oregon, for all of their efforts in working with me to fashion this bipartisan legislation. I also thank Chairman Bingaman, who has been very helpful with respect to this issue. He is a strong advocate of hybrids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside and that the Senate return to it later in the day.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier today, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Allen of Virginia, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would establish the technology equivalent of the National Guard. It is an effort we have been pursuing in the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee. I am very pleased to have the Presiding Officer of the Senate on the subcommittee and pleased that he is in the chair as we discuss this legislation tonight. This is a subject we have been working on since September 11 and the tragedy that struck our country that day. We are all aware that the public sector, government, military, and law enforcement have begun a very significant mobilization effort to fight terrorism. It is a laudatory effort, one I fully support. This public effort is not going to be successful alone, if we don't take steps to tap the tremendous technology and science talents of America's private sector. Considering the enormous technological challenges faced on September 11, the quality of emergency response is more than exceptional. But the many private companies and their science and technology experts who rushed to offer their help that day have told our committee they can do more. They can move faster, and they can help save more lives if the U.S. Congress provides a portal, an opportunity for them to more accessibly participate and offer their talents. That is why the legislation Senator Allen and I offered today, the Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act, provides an opportunity to tap those talents of the private sector. It doesn't create a large bureaucracy. It is not going to snarl our private companies in red tape. It is simply going to provide a gateway to bring the resources of the private sector to bear in the war against terrorism. I believe, just as John F. Kennedy gave America's youth a forum for public service, now is the time for our Government to throw open its doors to a new generation raised on information technologies that will be able to respond to the wide variety of technology and science- related challenges that arise in the wake of a terrorist attack or other disaster. The legislation we are offering today offers four opportunities to capitalize on the immense technology resources of our Nation. One I am especially pleased about would establish a virtual technology reserve. As my colleagues know, we have a strategic petroleum reserve in our country. It is an energy insurance policy, an energy bank, in effect, that we can tap when we are in a crunch with respect to oil products. I think we ought to look at technology as the same sort of resource. So we have created a virtual technology reserve in our legislation that would allow communities all across this country to put in place a preexisting database of private sector equipment and expertise that they could call upon in the case of an emergency. Access to this database would enable Federal, State, and local officials, as well as nongovernmental relief organizations, to locate quickly whatever technology or scientific help they might need from the private sector. For example, a city official tasked with setting up a command center in the wake of an emergency might need laptop computers and high capacity telecommunications equipment. A State health director facing a potential bioterrorism incident might need to locate experts with expertise concerning a specific pathogen and to obtain special detection and remediation technology as soon as possible. An emergency official coordinating in the field rescue and recovery efforts might need a batch of hand-held radios or might need to bring in mobile cellular units to expand local cellular coverage and capacity so people on the ground can communicate. In all of these instances, the key is locating equipment and expertise quickly. By turning to our virtual technology reserve, these officials would have a quick way to identify companies that have what they need and companies that have expressed their willingness to help in an emergency. The Wyden-Allen legislation has several other provisions that we believe will help make a meaningful difference in this fight against terrorism. The legislation provides for the formation of rapid response teams of science and technology experts. It establishes a clearinghouse and test bed for new antiterror technologies. Suffice it to say, our Government has received thousands and thousands of ideas, unsolicited, from private companies and citizens all across this country with respect to products to aid in the fight against terrorism. And there is no systematic way to evaluate the quality of those products. The bipartisan legislation we brought to the Senate today would provide that test bed and a plan to have those products evaluated. Finally, our legislation provides for pilot projects to help overcome a problem that seems incomprehensible in a communications center as advanced as the east coast of the United States. We saw on September 11 that first responders, people on the front lines, police and fire and others, were not able to communicate to each other. Before our subcommittee, we were told that on the east coast of the United States, arguably the most sophisticated communications center on the planet, there were firemen actually hand walking messages to their colleagues because all of the available communications systems--the hard-wire systems, the land lines, the cell lines--was down. So we badly need to have innovative work done in trying to make interoperable these communications systems that our first responders need. Our Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space found, as we analyzed the events of September 11, that the private sector was ready, willing, and able to contribute, but too often they were up against obstacles when they wanted to help. Some couldn't get proper credentials to access disaster sites. Some simply could not find the right place to offer their people their expertise and equipment and were literally knocking on doors offering to help, and people literally could use their skills. On December 5 of last year, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh testified before our subcommittee that emergency response officials could have used the help of people in the technology sector to set up databases to track the missing and injured, as well as the goods and services being donated. But what Director Allbaugh has said--and he has been very helpful in this effort--was there simply wasn't a centralized go-to desk to provide experts for immediate needs. In the event of a bioterror attack, we have been told by the health authorities that communities would face the very same confusion. Right now, if a town is hit with a biological agent and local officials are looking for the closest medical authority, there is no comprehensive list of certified experts to help them. Suffice it to say, in our effort to try to come up with a coordinated plan to fight terrorism, there are going to be some difficult issues. I have great sympathy for Tom Ridge as he tries to bring together these agencies--perhaps 20 agencies--that are going to be involved in this effort. There are going to be some very difficult decisions that have to be made to maximize the talents and work of these agencies. But it seems to me the idea of having a preexisting database, so that in communities in Florida, and in Oregon, and across this country, if you are hit with a bioterror agent or have a calamity involving a terrorist attack, that you would have a preexisting database of individuals who can help and companies that are willing to donate equipment. That strikes me as eminently doable, something practical that the Government can do to make a real difference. That is why our virtual technology reserve and setting up these databases can make a real difference. In addition to that virtual technology reserve, the Wyden-Allen bill seeks to move experts into a community as rapidly as possible when problems arise. To that end, in our bill we provide for the creation and certification of national emergency technology guard teams. We call these teams NET guard teams. They would be made up of volunteers with technology and science expertise, and they would be organized in advance and available to be mobilized on short notice. After consulting at length with leaders in the Bush administration, we have decided that these unique teams ought to be modeled after the urban search and rescue teams that are now under FEMA and the medical response teams under the Department of Health and Human Services. But instead of providing search and rescue or medical services, which, of course, is what is available today, the NET guard teams would provide the technology, information, and communications support to help rescuers work more effectively. Once assembled, NET guard teams can provide technology-related help in the aftermath of floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters as well. In the testimony Director Allbaugh gave to the subcommittee, we were told that the technology challenges that are facing crises such as the September 11 attacks are not just technology problems, they are problems that ultimately cost lives. The essence of this legislation is about saving lives, and one way it can do that is to establish a structure to form and activate what we call NET guard teams of technology experts who can step in when crises occur. We also think science and technology experts from the Nation's leading private sector companies have a role to play before disaster strikes. Clearly, we need to respond more effectively when there is a disaster. But it is only common sense to utilize the talents and energy of those in the private sector in a preventive way as well, and that is also a key feature of our bipartisan legislation. Since September 11, thousands of experts and entrepreneurs have contacted the Federal Government offering new technologies. We would like to have those evaluated. That evaluative kind of effort can go forward as we employ a preventive kind of strategy for our leaders in the private sector and for purposes of making sure we accept and evaluate and implement these ideas that are now flooding in from around the country. We create a Center for Civilian Homeland Security Technology Evaluation. It is going to have two purposes. It will serve as a national clearinghouse for security and emergency response technologies, helping to match companies with innovative technologies with the Government agencies that need them; it would provide a single point of contact to which both companies and Government agencies could turn to have their technology proposals addressed. What we have heard in our committee--and I have been told as well in the Commerce Committee, and in other forums--is that the private sector really doesn't know where to turn. Should they go to the Department of Health and Human Services? They have been interested in ideas from private sector leaders. Should they go to the Department of Defense? They are interested as well. We establish a center for evaluating technologies, so there will be a central clearinghouse for companies to know where to turn. More particularly, the center will operate a test bed to evaluate the ability of proposed technologies to satisfy Government needs. This test bed will work in conjunction with existing Federal agencies and the national laboratories. It is not meant to be a technology gatekeeper, somehow having the Federal Government picking winners and losers, but it is designed to assist agencies that are now telling us they do not have the capability to evaluate these technologies on their own. This test bed is necessary, in my view, to keep new technologies from slipping through the cracks. I don't want to see American lives lost because the Federal Government could not find a way to accommodate fresh, new ideas from our leaders in the technology and science area. The legislation springs, as I have touched on, from firsthand accounts of what happened on September 11. Here in the Capital and in New York, the terrorist strikes flattened telecommunications and information networks. Many people of New York wandered the streets, unable to find out anything about an injured or missing loved one or even to register their names. Web sites, voice mail, and e-mail systems of relief organizations filled up and crashed. When emergency workers moved in, they told us they were hindered by the fact that their communications systems could not work together. Courageous emergency workers told our subcommittee that communications breakdowns made their job more difficult and more dangerous as well. So for that reason, we would establish a pilot program under which grants of $5 million each would be available for seven pilot projects aimed at achieving interoperability of communications systems used by fire, law enforcement, and emergency preparedness and response agencies. In simple English, what that is all about is making sure the police, fire, and health agencies can communicate with each other. It is probably as important as anything the Government can do. But because in many instances there are overlapping authorities in different systems, we are not making that possible in our country. It involves a lot of complicated issues, many of which the occupant of the chair and I have a chance to wrestle with in the Commerce Committee. Certainly spectrum or forum are a part of it. At a minimum, we ought to test out through the pilot projects in the bipartisan bill we are introducing today some ideas for making it easier for police, fire, and health to communicate and save the lives of citizens, and certainly make their lives less dangerous as well. The Nation's top technology companies have been very involved in developing this effort, including Intel, Microsoft, America Online, and Oracle, that have all expressed support for the legislation. All of them believe that creating a high-technology reserve talent bank--a talent bank that serves as a new force to confront a new threat--and the other initiatives proposed in the Wyden-Allen bipartisan legislation make sense. I thank them and other leaders in the private sector for their involvement. In drafting the legislation, I have consulted with a number of leaders in the administration in the antiterrorism effort, including Director Allbaugh; Richard Clarke, the President's Special Advisor for Cybersecurity; Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; and John Marburger of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. To a person, they have been very responsive and they have met us more than halfway in terms of making their own time and that of their staffs available. Senator Allen and I appreciate their bipartisan commitment. I pledge tonight to continue to work with them and, on a bipartisan basis, with the administration and with colleagues in the Congress on both sides of the aisle, to move this bill forward as rapidly as possible. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support from several of the Nation's leading technology companies be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, earlier today, along with my friend and colleague, Senator Allen of Virginia, I introduced bipartisan legislation that would establish the technology equivalent of the National Guard. It is an effort we have been pursuing in the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee. I am very pleased to have the Presiding Officer of the Senate on the subcommittee and pleased that he is in the chair as we discuss this legislation tonight. This is a subject we have been working on since September 11 and the tragedy that struck our country that day. We are all aware that the public sector, government, military, and law enforcement have begun a very significant mobilization effort to fight terrorism. It is a laudatory effort, one I fully support. This public effort is not going to be successful alone, if we don't take steps to tap the tremendous technology and science talents of America's private sector. Considering the enormous technological challenges faced on September 11, the quality of emergency response is more than exceptional. But the many private companies and their science and technology experts who rushed to offer their help that day have told our committee they can do more. They can move faster, and they can help save more lives if the U.S. Congress provides a portal, an opportunity for them to more accessibly participate and offer their talents. That is why the legislation Senator Allen and I offered today, the Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act, provides an opportunity to tap those talents of the private sector. It doesn't create a large bureaucracy. It is not going to snarl our private companies in red tape. It is simply going to provide a gateway to bring the resources of the private sector to bear in the war against terrorism. I believe, just as John F. Kennedy gave America's youth a forum for public service, now is the time for our Government to throw open its doors to a new generation raised on information technologies that will be able to respond to the wide variety of technology and science- related challenges that arise in the wake of a terrorist attack or other disaster. The legislation we are offering today offers four opportunities to capitalize on the immense technology resources of our Nation. One I am especially pleased about would establish a virtual technology reserve. As my colleagues know, we have a strategic petroleum reserve in our country. It is an energy insurance policy, an energy bank, in effect, that we can tap when we are in a crunch with respect to oil products. I think we ought to look at technology as the same sort of resource. So we have created a virtual technology reserve in our legislation that would allow communities all across this country to put in place a preexisting database of private sector equipment and expertise that they could call upon in the case of an emergency. Access to this database would enable Federal, State, and local officials, as well as nongovernmental relief organizations, to locate quickly whatever technology or scientific help they might need from the private sector. For example, a city official tasked with setting up a command center in the wake of an emergency might need laptop computers and high capacity telecommunications equipment. A State health director facing a potential bioterrorism incident might need to locate experts with expertise concerning a specific pathogen and to obtain special detection and remediation technology as soon as possible. An emergency official coordinating in the field rescue and recovery efforts might need a batch of hand-held radios or might need to bring in mobile cellular units to expand local cellular coverage and capacity so people on the ground can communicate. In all of these instances, the key is locating equipment and expertise quickly. By turning to our virtual technology reserve, these officials would have a quick way to identify companies that have what they need and companies that have expressed their willingness to help in an emergency. The Wyden-Allen legislation has several other provisions that we believe will help make a meaningful difference in this fight against terrorism. The legislation provides for the formation of rapid response teams of science and technology experts. It establishes a clearinghouse and test bed for new antiterror technologies. Suffice it to say, our Government has received thousands and thousands of ideas, unsolicited, from private companies and citizens all across this country with respect to products to aid in the fight against terrorism. And there is no systematic way to evaluate the quality of those products. The bipartisan legislation we brought to the Senate today would provide that test bed and a plan to have those products evaluated. Finally, our legislation provides for pilot projects to help overcome a problem that seems incomprehensible in a communications center as advanced as the east coast of the United States. We saw on September 11 that first responders, people on the front lines, police and fire and others, were not able to communicate to each other. Before our subcommittee, we were told that on the east coast of the United States, arguably the most sophisticated communications center on the planet, there were firemen actually hand walking messages to their colleagues because all of the available communications systems--the hard-wire systems, the land lines, the cell lines--was down. So we badly need to have innovative work done in trying to make interoperable these communications systems that our first responders need. Our Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space found, as we analyzed the events of September 11, that the private sector was ready, willing, and able to contribute, but too often they were up against obstacles when they wanted to help. Some couldn't get proper credentials to access disaster sites. Some simply could not find the right place to offer their people their expertise and equipment and were literally knocking on doors offering to help, and people literally could use their skills. On December 5 of last year, FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh testified before our subcommittee that emergency response officials could have used the help of people in the technology sector to set up databases to track the missing and injured, as well as the goods and services being donated. But what Director Allbaugh has said--and he has been very helpful in this effort--was there simply wasn't a centralized go-to desk to provide experts for immediate needs. In the event of a bioterror attack, we have been told by the health authorities that communities would face the very same confusion. Right now, if a town is hit with a biological agent and local officials are looking for the closest medical authority, there is no comprehensive list of certified experts to help them. Suffice it to say, in our effort to try to come up with a coordinated plan to fight terrorism, there are going to be some difficult issues. I have great sympathy for Tom Ridge as he tries to bring together these agencies--perhaps 20 agencies--that are going to be involved in this effort. There are going to be some very difficult decisions that have to be made to maximize the talents and work of these agencies. But it seems to me the idea of having a preexisting database, so that in communities in Florida, and in Oregon, and across this country, if you are hit with a bioterror agent or have a calamity involving a terrorist attack, that you would have a preexisting database of individuals who can help and companies that are willing to donate equipment. That strikes me as eminently doable, something practical that the Government can do to make a real difference. That is why our virtual technology reserve and setting up these databases can make a real difference. In addition to that virtual technology reserve, the Wyden-Allen bill seeks to move experts into a community as rapidly as possible when problems arise. To that end, in our bill we provide for the creation and certification of national emergency technology guard teams. We call these teams NET guard teams. They would be made up of volunteers with technology and science expertise, and they would be organized in advance and available to be mobilized on short notice. After consulting at length with leaders in the Bush administration, we have decided that these unique teams ought to be modeled after the urban search and rescue teams that are now under FEMA and the medical response teams under the Department of Health and Human Services. But instead of providing search and rescue or medical services, which, of course, is what is available today, the NET guard teams would provide the technology, information, and communications support to help rescuers work more effectively. Once assembled, NET guard teams can provide technology-related help in the aftermath of floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters as well. In the testimony Director Allbaugh gave to the subcommittee, we were told that the technology challenges that are facing crises such as the September 11 attacks are not just technology problems, they are problems that ultimately cost lives. The essence of this legislation is about saving lives, and one way it can do that is to establish a structure to form and activate what we call NET guard teams of technology experts who can step in when crises occur. We also think science and technology experts from the Nation's leading private sector companies have a role to play before disaster strikes. Clearly, we need to respond more effectively when there is a disaster. But it is only common sense to utilize the talents and energy of those in the private sector in a preventive way as well, and that is also a key feature of our bipartisan legislation. Since September 11, thousands of experts and entrepreneurs have contacted the Federal Government offering new technologies. We would like to have those evaluated. That evaluative kind of effort can go forward as we employ a preventive kind of strategy for our leaders in the private sector and for purposes of making sure we accept and evaluate and implement these ideas that are now flooding in from around the country. We create a Center for Civilian Homeland Security Technology Evaluation. It is going to have two purposes. It will serve as a national clearinghouse for security and emergency response technologies, helping to match companies with innovative technologies with the Government agencies that need them; it would provide a single point of contact to which both companies and Government agencies could turn to have their technology proposals addressed. What we have heard in our committee--and I have been told as well in the Commerce Committee, and in other forums--is that the private sector really doesn't know where to turn. Should they go to the Department of Health and Human Services? They have been interested in ideas from private sector leaders. Should they go to the Department of Defense? They are interested as well. We establish a center for evaluating technologies, so there will be a central clearinghouse for companies to know where to turn. More particularly, the center will operate a test bed to evaluate the ability of proposed technologies to satisfy Government needs. This test bed will work in conjunction with existing Federal agencies and the national laboratories. It is not meant to be a technology gatekeeper, somehow having the Federal Government picking winners and losers, but it is designed to assist agencies that are now telling us they do not have the capability to evaluate these technologies on their own. This test bed is necessary, in my view, to keep new technologies from slipping through the cracks. I don't want to see American lives lost because the Federal Government could not find a way to accommodate fresh, new ideas from our leaders in the technology and science area. The legislation springs, as I have touched on, from firsthand accounts of what happened on September 11. Here in the Capital and in New York, the terrorist strikes flattened telecommunications and information networks. Many people of New York wandered the streets, unable to find out anything about an injured or missing loved one or even to register their names. Web sites, voice mail, and e-mail systems of relief organizations filled up and crashed. When emergency workers moved in, they told us they were hindered by the fact that their communications systems could not work together. Courageous emergency workers told our subcommittee that communications breakdowns made their job more difficult and more dangerous as well. So for that reason, we would establish a pilot program under which grants of $5 million each would be available for seven pilot projects aimed at achieving interoperability of communications systems used by fire, law enforcement, and emergency preparedness and response agencies. In simple English, what that is all about is making sure the police, fire, and health agencies can communicate with each other. It is probably as important as anything the Government can do. But because in many instances there are overlapping authorities in different systems, we are not making that possible in our country. It involves a lot of complicated issues, many of which the occupant of the chair and I have a chance to wrestle with in the Commerce Committee. Certainly spectrum or forum are a part of it. At a minimum, we ought to test out through the pilot projects in the bipartisan bill we are introducing today some ideas for making it easier for police, fire, and health to communicate and save the lives of citizens, and certainly make their lives less dangerous as well. The Nation's top technology companies have been very involved in developing this effort, including Intel, Microsoft, America Online, and Oracle, that have all expressed support for the legislation. All of them believe that creating a high-technology reserve talent bank--a talent bank that serves as a new force to confront a new threat--and the other initiatives proposed in the Wyden-Allen bipartisan legislation make sense. I thank them and other leaders in the private sector for their involvement. In drafting the legislation, I have consulted with a number of leaders in the administration in the antiterrorism effort, including Director Allbaugh; Richard Clarke, the President's Special Advisor for Cybersecurity; Commerce Secretary Donald Evans; and John Marburger of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. To a person, they have been very responsive and they have met us more than halfway in terms of making their own time and that of their staffs available. Senator Allen and I appreciate their bipartisan commitment. I pledge tonight to continue to work with them and, on a bipartisan basis, with the administration and with colleagues in the Congress on both sides of the aisle, to move this bill forward as rapidly as possible. At this point, I ask unanimous consent that letters in support from several of the Nation's leading technology companies be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I know the hour is late, but I want to take just a couple of additional minutes to talk about the campaign finance legislation that passed today. I very much appreciate the indulgence of the Presiding Officer. I just have a few minutes I want to use to discuss the landmark bill that passed today. First, as so many colleagues, I salute Senators McCain and Feingold. They are a model of what it takes to get a tough proposal through the Congress. They simply would not take no, literally. From the time I came to the Senate, both of them double-teamed me and made it clear they were going to stay at it until I had come around to the value of supporting their legislation. In fact, I went on record in support of the legislation as soon as I came to the Senate, and I wanted to talk to them about some additional ways to strengthen the bill. One of those additional proposals has become a part of the legislation that passed the Senate today. I want to touch on it briefly. I offered this proposal with our friend and colleague, Senator Susan Collins of Maine. It is called the stand-by-your-ad requirement. It is a significant step forward in promoting accountability in the political process. It will provide a meaningful step to slow the corrosion of the political process and essentially the corrosion that springs from a lack of Federal responsibility when Federal candidates take to the airwaves to win elections but do not want to be held accountable. The stand-by-your-ad proposal that was included in the legislation we voted on today is straightforward. It says simply that to qualify for the special advertising discount given to candidates now for Federal office, those candidates have to personally stand by any mention of an opponent in a radio or television ad by placing a photo on the screen and stating he or she personally approved the broadcast or personally identify themselves in a radio ad and reading a statement saying they have approved the ad. First amendment rights are protected under this proposal. Candidates can say anything they please. They just have to personally stand by their remarks to get the discount. They can say anything they want, however farfetched and however extreme. As long as it is allowed under Federal law, they can still say it. To get the discount, if they are going to attack their opponent--of course, that is almost invariably what happens when you mention an opponent in an ad--they have to stand by that ad and personally be held accountable. If a candidate chooses not to stand by a reference to an opponent, they will buy their ad time at a rate comparable to that charged a commercial user at the station. Take Nebraska, Oregon, or any part of the country. What happens now, in effect, is the local car dealer or restaurant or other private sector firm has to pay more for various ads because there are subsidies that are given for political campaigns. We are saying that to get those subsidies, to get those discounts, you have to stand by your ad. A candidate who is going to say something positive or negative about an opponent has to own up to it, not just edit together a bunch of shadowy pictures to cover up the fact he or she is the one making the statement. What this means is that if you want to get the discount with respect to your campaign, you are not going to be able to hide anymore behind those grainy pictures and bloodcurdling music. You are not going to be able to paint your opponent as somebody who looks like they just came out of prison and has not had a chance to get cleaned up and has had every possible dastardly act impugned to them. You are not going to be able to do that any longer. You are going to have to own up to what you say and not just run these grainy pictures and frighten kids and families with bloodcurdling music in an effort to score points at your opponent's expense. As the Chair knows, we are all campaign veterans in this body and know a little bit about how in a campaign the sucker punches happen. They are not made on the stump while the candidate stands there with the band and bunting all around. They are made on TV; they are made on radio when the announcer's voice comes on in the most sinister way and shadowy pictures appear saying a vote for your opponent is pretty much a vote to end Western civilization. That is what happens in a campaign. You have again and again portrayed your opponent not as somebody with whom you disagree on the issues but someone who is going to be a threat to the American way of life, and the accusing candidate's face and voice are nowhere to be found, and it is easy for folks to forget--conveniently to forget--who is doing the attacking. I bring a special awareness to this issue because in the Senate special election with Senator Smith, with whom I work on a great many issues and publish a bipartisan agenda at the start of each Congress, meeting me more than halfway as a colleague and friend in the Senate, he and I were in a campaign that was completely and totally out of hand, and many Oregonians simply did not want to vote. They got to the point where they said: The stench in this debate on both sides is so great, we are turned off the political process altogether. I made the judgment in that race that I was going to take all the ads off the air about Senator Smith. I said: This is not what I went into public service for--to attack somebody else. The reason I got involved with the Gray Panthers--and I was codirector of the senior citizens group for 7 years before I was elected to the House--is because I was interested in ideas, the best ideas. I did not care if they were Democratic or Republican ideas. Oregon on a bipartisan basis came up with breakthroughs in home health care and a variety of other ways to serve senior citizens. I looked at what was happening in the Senate special election and said: This is completely contrary to everything I have stood for since my days with the Gray Panthers and contrary to all the reasons for which I went into public service. I went into public service to offer ideas and creative suggestions for making my State and my country a better place, and all of a sudden in that Senate special election, I was not recognizing what was being said in my name because all of it was just the opposite of positive. It was just attack, attack, attack. My colleague, Senator Smith, to his credit, shares my view that our campaigns got completely out of hand. For about 3 weeks, the people of Oregon had balance in their hand. I made no reference to Senator Smith at all. I took all of the ads off the air that mentioned his name and talked only about the kinds of initiatives I wanted to pursue, issues we talked about in the Senate today such as the bipartisan proposal Senator Snowe and I have on prescription drugs. I admit I come to this question of attack ads colored by a truly searing experience I had in 1996 and it is why Senator Collins and I felt so strongly about trying to make this change. I think owning up to statements about what a candidate says about their opponent is going to make a difference. I think it is going to cause a candidate to think twice before they go forward with these negative blitzes on their opponents. I am going to be frank. That is what I wanted to see American politics be all about after 1996. That is why I have tried to keep it positive and to focus on areas where in the public policy arena people can be helped, people can be empowered, and they can make choices that make a difference for their lives. Certainly the debate on campaign finance reform has been contentious, but I think we can all agree that reasonable ideas can help clean up this process, reasonable ideas can help drain the swamp that has become the way political campaigns are financed and run in much of this country. I believe the stand-by-your-ad proposal, which holds candidates accountable, and which I was honored to have a chance to work with Senator Collins of Maine, is going to help clean up campaigns. It is going to help make candidates more accountable and make the politics and political discourse in this country more positive and more open. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Nevada for the excellent statement on the importance of renewable energy. He and Senator Jeffords have really made the case. I want it understood that I very much share Senator Reid's views with respect to renewable energy. He and Senator Jeffords have really been our leaders. This amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. As I begin my remarks, I would especially like to express my appreciation to Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Leahy, and Hatch. All of them have been very gracious in terms of working with me on this issue. This amendment would establish within the Department of Justice the Office of Consumer Advocacy. This is especially important right now because our Nation's electric power system is undergoing dramatic changes. New sources of power are produced by State-regulated utility companies. Unregulated power marketers are providing an increasing share of new power generation in this country. At the State level, many States--in fact, the majority of the States--have put in place consumer advocates whose job it is to stand up for the energy ratepayer. The fact is that across this country, in the last year, America's energy consumers--particularly senior citizens and small businesses--have many millions of dollars taken from their pockets. The fact is that the Federal Government really is not in a position to deal with many of the rate hikes, nor are the State governments, because much of this activity relates to energy trading and energy activity that is interstate in nature. We have the States across the country trying to stand up for the ratepayer. Many of the legislatures have created these consumer advocates that monitor energy prices to make sure the State-regulated utilities are charging fair rates. But when power is being traded like pork bellies and so much of the energy business has moved interstate, the State advocates have no way to investigate or address the wholesale power prices that eventually raise retail consumer rates and that are spawned by interstate activity. What I am proposing in this legislation--which is a part of what my colleagues, Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Hatch, and Leahy, have already made clear--is that we will continue to refine this bill as we go through the legislative process, and we will create a Federal advocate for the energy consumer. That advocate at the Department of Justice will have the authority to address the interstate trading of wholesale power and to spotlight unfair wholesale price hikes before they get to the State-regulated utilities and their retail ratepayers. My view is that consumer advocates provide an independent watchdog over a variety of important issues that come before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and a number of agencies that affect energy policy and the American consumer. Power, of course, used to be produced and sold by State-regulated utilities. Those advocates were able to watchdog the entire process. But today, with State advocates being forced to rubberstamp a lot of these electric rate increases caused by spikes in interstate wholesale prices, consumers are more vulnerable than ever before. The purpose of this amendment is to close the gap which is leaving consumers unprotected from wholesale wheeling and dealing. When prices spike in the wholesale energy market, the fact is that our States and public utility commissions really do not have the authority to challenge these rate increases due to increased wholesale prices. But the Federal consumer advocate could ask for protection of consumer interests. If the increases weren't just and reasonable, the advocates could represent the consumer in a complaint before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, challenging those prices. Some may say as they consider this issue that there really isn't a need for a Federal advocate, that utilities and other buyers of energy can bring cases on their own at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission if someone is manipulating the market. But that approach won't work when the buyer of energy is the utility owned by an energy marketer. The utility isn't going to bring a case at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission against its parent company. In cases where a utility engages in transactions with the parent company, the consumer advocate can independently investigate to make sure the utility ratepayers are not harmed by deals which enrich the parent company at the expense of the utility and its ratepayers. A number of organizations support this legislation. I want to take a minute to particularly commend the American Association of Retired Persons. I have worked with them on these issues, going back to my days when I was codirector of the Oregon Gray Panthers and ran a voluntary legal aid program for the elderly. They have pulled together a grassroots juggernaut on behalf of this effort involving the public interest--research organizations, State associations of advocates for ratepayers, and the ones that I think do a very good job given the limited tools they have today. I ask unanimous consent that a set of letters endorsing this amendment be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, as I indicated earlier, my colleagues-- particularly Senators Bingaman, Murkowski, Leahy, and Hatch--have been very gracious in working with me on this position. We are going to continue to work with them as this legislation is considered in the Senate and when this bill gets to conference. As we go forward with this today, I hope we will ensure that there is a strong Federal presence to advocate for the consumer. I think these advocates at the State level do a good job given their limited resources. Given the fact that so much of the energy business has moved interstate, and those interstate transactions can result in higher bills to small businesses in Georgia, Oregon, and across this country for senior citizens and others of modest means, I think we need to now have a Federal advocate. I am pleased we have been able to assemble a bipartisan group that is going to help pass this today and continue to work to refine it as it is considered through the evolution of this legislation in the Senate and in conference. I ask the Senate to approve the amendment at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that Cindy Bethell, a fellow in my office, to be granted access to the Senate floor for the consideration of the energy bill.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I want to commend Senator Feinstein for leading all of us in this critically important effort. It has been a pleasure to team up with her. She has been the catalyst in this whole effort and it is a pleasure to stand with her. I also want to note that Senator Cantwell has been a tremendous voice for consumers in the Pacific Northwest and our country, and I have enjoyed teaming up with her as well as Senator Feinstein. I am going to be very brief because I think our colleague from California has laid it out very well. Today, as the Senate turns to a number of important amendments that are going to relate to the consumer protection issue, I think it is important to note this is an opportunity to end the Enron exemption. For years, Enron and other energy traders have operated back room trading floors where energy has been bought and sold as a commodity while the public has been kept in the dark. I think the question that colleagues may be asking is: Had this amendment been law during the time when all of the damage associated with Enron was being perpetrated, what would have been the difference? What would have been different had the Feinstein-Cantwell-Wyden effort been law at the time? It seems to me there would have been two very significant benefits had this legislation been law. First, I think it would have been less likely that there would have been market manipulation. Certainly, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is investigating that question. That has not yet been determined. Certainly, conceptually it is much tougher to manipulate a market if in fact the transparency and the openness is there that this legislation calls for. Second, had this legislation been law, if in fact there was market manipulation it would be possible to find that out very quickly. As all of our colleagues know, as a result of the request from west coast Senators, virtually all of us have joined into it. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has written to the west coast Senators saying they are going to investigate whether Enron manipulated our markets, but it will take them several months to conduct this investigation. Had Enron's energy trading been regulated, as called for in this amendment, we would not have had to wait months to determine if Enron manipulated the market. Information about energy trading operations would have been immediately available to regulators and the public instead of shrouded in secrecy. I think it is important for colleagues to note, first, this amendment makes it less likely that anybody can manipulate a market; and, second, if there is that kind of conduct taking place, it would not take months to ascertain what went on. One could find it out much more readily because information would be made available more quickly. Before it collapsed, Enron was the biggest energy trader in the country, controlling one-quarter of all wholesale energy trades. Despite the great impact on energy markets, they were able to hide the facts about the trading operations from public scrutiny by securing exemptions from regulation for their energy and derivatives trading. Evidence is emerging that Enron may have secretly used its market power to manipulate prices in energy markets. A witness testified before the Senate Energy Committee that the price of forward contracts for electricity dropped as much as 30 percent after Enron filed for bankruptcy, suggesting, according to this witness, Enron was artificially inflating prices in western markets. There is a well-regulated system in place for trading pork bellies and other commodities to protect the public from market manipulation, but energy, a commodity that we all regard as essential, has been completely exempt. It seems to me if energy is going to be bought and sold as a commodity, the public should at least have the same protections that exist for trading any other commodity. There must be transparency for the markets to work. Let me conclude with one last point, and then I know we are going to hear from our colleague from Washington. There has been considerable discussion as to whether this is somehow granting vast new powers to Government, and that Government is in some way reacting to what happened in the Enron situation. First of all, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission had this authority before. This is not a brand new idea. They had this authority and essentially they gave it up. What this bill does is restore authority to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate energy the same way it regulates every other commodity. I hope when my colleagues vote on this amendment, they recognize this is something that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission used to have. It is authority that was on the books before the agency granted a blanket exemption from regulating energy as a commodity. As my colleague from California noted, Congress later went along as part of an appropriations rider. But this bill does not give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission vast new powers nobody has ever heard about, and constitute in some way a rush to judgment in reaction to the Enron situation. This is restoring a power the agency should not have given up. I compliment my colleague from California. She has been the leader in this effort, as has the Senator from the State of Washington.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kentucky. I will be brief. I want it understood tonight that in the withdrawal of this amendment, I am doing this as part of a good-faith effort to find common ground with my colleagues. The people of Oregon feel so strongly about this issue that I could not let this bill go to final passage until it protects Oregon's election rights, but I would like to advance the consideration of the legislation by this body. That is why I am not objecting tonight. Senator Smith and I will continue to work with our colleagues on a bipartisan basis to address this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote once again on cloture with respect to the election reform bill. I come to the floor to take a couple of minutes to say that, once again, Oregon's two Senators will be working together on a bipartisan basis to try to protect the voting rights of folks who, in a small State 3,000 miles from here, have come up with a system that I think can be a national model. It has empowered Americans. It empowered the people of our State--like, essentially, no other--in the Senate special election that was held in 1996, when three times the level of voter interest was shown as was shown in the previous Senate special election. My colleague, Senator Smith, lost in that election by a small amount. He waged a valiant campaign. He has become a colleague with whom I have worked very closely. To his great credit, after an election that I won narrowly, he made it clear there were no instances of fraud or flagrant violations that tainted the election. That is why the two of us, on a bipartisan basis, feel so strongly about protecting Oregon's election rights. I see another northwesterner in the Chamber and currently presiding. I know the occupant of the chair feels strongly about protecting the rights of those in Washington State who vote by mail. We are willing to meet our colleagues on the other side more than halfway. We have said that from the very beginning. Northwesterners are not a part of the Rules Committee. We have tried very hard to work with our colleagues. I have believed for some time that there is the framework of a compromise that could address the concerns of those on both sides. The senior Senator from Missouri makes a good case that more does need to be done to address fraud. I think the appropriate time to do that is in the registration process--what is essentially the front end of the voters' involvement in the political process. I am willing to meet him more than halfway in addressing those concerns. The chairman of the Rules Committee, Senator Dodd, has worked on a variety of compromises to try to address the concerns of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and he and I are going to continue to do that. But we do have to voice our strong objection to gutting a system that is working, that has empowered thousands and thousands of voters. Unfortunately, if we go forward today with the bill as written, it will do great damage to those States that do vote by mail. Every review of the disputed 2000 election showed that there were a variety of errors with punchcard voting machines. But what we want to do is address those concerns and not roll back the clock, which is what you would do if you did damage to States that vote by mail. We think our signature verification process is a good one. It is one that has been in place to ensure that there are not those who would engage in fraud. At the end of the day, we think voting by mail--the process used exclusively in Oregon--is not one that should be thrown overboard to deal with problems of fraud in other parts of the country. We have a system that works. We have a system that empowers the people in our State. It is not a system riddled by corruption. I am going to yield the floor now because I see the chairman of the committee and ranking minority member here. Both of them have been very helpful in working with this Senator. I want them to know that, however the vote turns out, I am going to continue to work with them. I assure them, having just spoken with my colleague, Senator Smith, tonight as well, that he and I are working right now on ideas to address the concerns of both sides of the aisle to get over this Oregon issue. Oregon's two Senators are united on a bipartisan basis to address this concern.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I will be very brief.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Yes.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I commend the Senator from Connecticut, who has just done yeoman work on what I think is a critical question; that is, finding common ground and the bipartisanship that is needed to pass this election reform bill. I think the Senate has a clear choice this morning. A vote for cloture strengthens this Nation's greatest freedom--the right to vote. A vote against cloture weakens that freedom and it weakens a freedom that is critical for this country and leaves that freedom unprotected. I believe this morning's vote is a choice between affirming the pioneering spirit of this country--the spirit that led my State of Oregon to champion new voting reforms, such as vote by mail, motor voter laws--and stamping out that spirit with what could end up to be repressive antivoting rules. So the choice is between election reform and gridlock. I want to be fair with the Senator from Connecticut and we are going to continue to work nonstop, relentlessly, to find a bipartisan approach to this issue. We want to blaze a real trail in meaningful election reform and get this bill on the President's desk. So I urge my colleagues on both sides to continue to work on this critical effort, to join the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky in an effort to get a bipartisan solution. I don't want to see this bill derailed. S. 565 is the vehicle that can enfranchise the thousands, perhaps millions of voters who will cast their ballots in every election. But we also need to make sure that there is a fix to S. 565. The photo identification requirement, in my view, would disenfranchise millions of first-time voters by requiring identifying documents to be presented along with their vote--not their registration, but their vote--before that vote could be counted. This would have applied to first-time voters even if they had cast ballots for 50 years in a jurisdiction and then moved down the street to another. The amendment approved by the Senate allows the signature verification system used by 27 States and the District of Columbia as one option for identifying first-time voters. The amendment I drafted with the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer, protected successful vote- by-mail systems such as the one in my home State and ensured that Americans who may not have access to driver's licenses, bank accounts, and utility bills would still have access to democracy. There doesn't seem to be any point to rehashing the Schumer-Wyden amendment this morning. A majority of this body acknowledged that allowing signature verification would protect the voting rights of 24 million seniors in this country who disproportionately vote by absentee and mail-in ballot. The majority of this body agreed with the eloquent assertion of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights that ``requiring voters to present photo ID or other documentation when voting in person or by mail results in discrimination''--that it ``would undermine successful vote by mail programs--such as Oregon's . . . and . . . make voting more difficult for millions of elderly and disabled Americans.'' A majority of this body refused to overturn the will of Oregon voters and scores of others across this country. In my home State, 70 percent chose to institute a vote-by-mail system based on signature verification, a vote-by-mail system that has boosted turnout to record levels--without deterring voting. A majority of this body refused to return to the bad old days when only Americans who were already enfranchised could be assured that their vote could be cast and counted. Most importantly, a majority of this body recognized that being tough on fraud doesn't have to make it tougher to vote. Since approval of our amendment, I have worked with Senator Schumer, Senators Dodd, Bond, and McConnell to continue to find a way to meet our colleagues halfway. I have said that I think the framework for a compromise is to strengthen antifraud measures at the front end of the process, when people register and when you do the most good in terms of deterring fraud. I think tougher identification standards at that point in the registration--something the Senator from Missouri has felt strongly about--makes sense and I want to see that happen. I believe compromise is possible, that we can, on a bipartisan basis, come together, put the voting rights of Americans first, whether they vote by mail or in person, and find ways to stop fraud without putting up roadblocks to democracy. I ask unanimous consent to have a number of editorials and letters printed in the Record supporting the amendment that I and Senator Schumer authored.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course, in my home State of Oregon, what we have tried to do is to have a tough system at the front end. But, yes, when you sign your ballot and mail it in, and there is a statement about the tough criminal penalties that are involved in falsification there, we prosecute people in the State of Oregon. You can send your ballot in by signing it, and that is then checked against the original signature. That is how it takes place in my home State.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I do believe that a vote for cloture strengthens this country's greatest freedom--the right to vote--and a vote against cloture leaves that freedom unprotected. A vote for cloture is a vote for the millions of seniors in American nursing homes who need to vote by mail and don't want new barriers to have their votes counted and assured. Their generation saved this democracy and they deserve to participate in it. A vote for cloture is a vote for working families who use the vote- by-mail system in my State and others as a way to have their voices heard as they live the hectic lives that often present challenges to their getting to the polls. This morning, I urge my colleagues to affirm America's most precious right--the right of every citizen to vote and to have that vote count. I want to wrap up--particularly since my good friend from Pennsylvania is in the Chamber--by reemphasizing my desire to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Bond and Senator McConnell. I have strong views about this issue. We want to work with our colleagues and talk about whether those on the other side of the aisle want a bill. I have stuck up for my colleagues. I think they want a bill and I want to make it clear that I think Senators Bond and McConnell are working very hard with us to try to find the common ground. I hope we can get there, and I believe cloture will help advance that.

Mr. WYDEN. I yield to my friend for a question.

Mr. WYDEN. My colleague is right. It is the basic proposition that there are a number of systems by which we can address this concern. There is a reason that groups such as AARP still believe that, even with the measure the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania has outlined, the legislation without the Schumer-Wyden amendment still creates barriers. We have people in vote-by-mail systems--seniors, the disabled--who find it awfully hard, physically, to get about and locate the kind of documents the Senator is talking about.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, there have been a number of prosecutions. They, obviously, as my colleague knows from his prosecutorial days, play out in a variety of ways. For example, I know of an instance where the person was out bragging that they had skirted the law, they were evading the law, and when the prosecutors learned about it, they came down very hard. The point is--and my colleague makes a good point with respect to how these systems may work in Pennsylvania--Senator Smith, my friend and colleague, and I had a Senate special election. We generated three times the level of voter participation than we saw in the previous Senate special election. I won by a grand total of 18,220 votes after more than 1 million were cast.

Mr. WYDEN. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, to my colleague's great credit, he did not assert there was any fraud. We prosecute aggressively in the State of Oregon. I see my colleague from Missouri is in the Chamber, and I want him to be assured, however this vote turns out this morning, we are going to continue to work relentlessly for a bipartisan compromise. I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. I yield the floor.