Floor Statements

Reserving the right to object.

It is my understanding the Senator from Kentucky is going to use the half hour under the rule now available before the Senate on the Estrada cloture. He is going to use his time as in morning business; is that correct?

I just said the half hour that you are entitled to under the Estrada time for cloture, you are going to use that as in morning business?

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

Will the Senator from Wisconsin yield?

Madam President, I direct this question through you to the distinguished manager of the bill for the majority. I have had a number of inquiries during the vote as to whether or not, when the Secretary of Defense comes here at 4 o'clock this afternoon, we are going to take a recess. We have a number of Democrats who are going to attend. I assume there will be members of the majority attending that briefing also.

Reserving the right to object--and I shall not object--the Senator has that right. We are in the process of winding down debate on the Feingold amendment. After Senator Byrd and the Senator from New Mexico, the manager of the bill, we would be ready to vote on not only the Feingold amendment but the two amendments that have been offered by the Democratic manager of this bill.

I suggest, because these were debated yesterday, we should have 10 minutes equally divided prior to a vote on each of the Bingaman amendments. While Senator Byrd is speaking, maybe the staff could prepare a unanimous consent agreement to meet these steps that we need to take to complete votes on these three amendments. We would at that time be ready to offer another amendment.

Also, if Senator Byrd speaks for half an hour or 45 minutes, then we will have these votes occur at the same time as Mr. Rumsfeld is here. I don't know if that is what people want. At least half of the Senate will be going to the Rumsfeld meeting--maybe even more. It is up to the Republican leader, of course, what he wants to do with the Secretary of Defense. But whatever the wish of the leader is, we will certainly go along.

We are ready to vote on these three amendments.

I would be happy to do that, although I have conferred with Senator Bingaman. On one amendment he needs 5 minutes, and on the other amendment he could use 2\1/2\ minutes.

Madam President, I commend Senators Cantwell and Bingaman for their amendments to the electricity title that will, in effect, ban all forms of market manipulation and add important merger provisions. I am terribly disappointed that the Cantwell amendment failed by a vote of 48 to 50. She did an extremely fine job of laying out this program. I am sorry it didn't pass. It should have. I think there will be some Senators who voted against her amendment who will regret having done so.

We know that the energy crisis in California in 2001 resulted from market manipulation and price fixing. People of the State of Nevada were severely hurt by this manipulated electricity market, as were consumers all over Western States.

The State of Nevada has just completed the most contentious legislative session in the history of the State. The Governor of the State, after the regular session ended, had to continually call special sessions. I don't really know how many he called--two, three, four, five--but they were there for a long time. Finally, because nothing could be completed, the Governor filed a legal action with the Nevada Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court acted, action was taken. The provision in question that went before the supreme court is whether the Nevada Legislature had to pass tax increases by a two-thirds vote. The Nevada Supreme Court said no and they said yes, but regardless of that, I spoke to the majority leader from Nevada, Bill Raggio, today. He said he made the determination that it was going to pass by two-thirds, and both the assembly and the house ultimately did that.

The reason I mention the difficulty they had is because of the tremendous burden the State of Nevada had in not having enough revenues to meet the projected deficit, $1 billion in the State of Nevada, much of which was caused by the problems that developed in California with manipulating the energy prices there.

The State of Nevada had other problems: unfunded mandates that we have passed on to them with homeland security and Leave No Child Behind, which has left a lot of kids behind. The fact is, the electricity rates had a lot to do with that very difficult legislative session. That session took a long, long time to complete. Since 1999, electricity rates in the Las Vegas area have increased by more than 60 percent. Over the same period, natural gas prices across Nevada have doubled. It is a sad state of affairs that some seniors, especially, and low-income families in Nevada are being forced to go without prescription drugs or cut back on food in order to pay their electricity rates. That is a fact.

The bills that come from these increased electricity rates are a real burden, as the Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell, mentioned today. She read specific letters from people in the State of Washington where these prices were preventing them from getting proper medical care and having the ability to pay their rent. The same applies, of course, in Nevada.

These wild price increases in electricity were painful to homeowners. They also made it hard for businesses to expand or make long-term plans. Nevada consumers were being asked to pay for the same very expensive long-term contracts negotiated by utilities in 2001 at the time of the California energy crisis. It cost Nevada ratepayers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Nevada Power, the power company that serves the Las Vegas area and southern Nevada, has flirted with bankruptcy. It is rated at junk bond status where in the past it was one of the strongest utilities in America. What does this junk bond status mean? It means the cost of money for the utility to purchase power for Nevada is very high.

The weakened financial condition of our utility is a burden to our ratepayers. I can remember during some of this time that I had to call the Governor of California to see if there could be some arrangement made so the power that the people of the State needed coming from California could be provided. I had to have a signoff from the Governor of California. This was difficult. They were in deep distress but their distress was passed on to Nevada.

The weakened financial condition of our utility is a burden to our ratepayers and the taxpayers of the State of Nevada. After Enron was exposed for its unfair and unethical practices, whether it was Fat Boy or Get Shorty, all these practices had an impact in Nevada. After these unfair practices were exposed, a subsidiary of Enron stopped delivering electricity to Nevada Power because of its weakened financial condition. Then adding insult to injury, this Enron subsidy sued Nevada Power for the losses it might incur if it couldn't sell the power at the contract price.

In a recent ruling, FERC upheld the contract the utility signed at these exorbitantly high prices. Again, our ratepayers were not protected from abuses during the California energy crisis. It is not consistent with rational thought that FERC could do this but they did it.

As the western energy crisis and Enron's collapse made clear, electricity markets are ripe for manipulation unless clear safeguards are put in place and companies are held accountable. The electricity title should ban all forms of market manipulation and contain concrete penalties for those that break the rules. The electricity title should strengthen FERC's authority to review public utility mergers for electric and gas--there will be an amendment that will focus just on gas in this regard--holding company mergers and generation assets, and ensure any consolidations are in the public interest.

I extend the appreciation of the entire Democratic caucus for the work done by the manager on our side, Senator Bingaman. Senator Bingaman is an intelligent Senator. He is experienced. He has done everything he can to help this bill be a bill that is a good bill which is indicated by the tremendous amendments he has filed that we will vote on in the next few hours.

Last year Democrats worked with Republicans to pass energy legislation by a vote of 88 to 11. This vote was to strengthen our national energy security, safeguard consumers and taxpayers, and protect the environment. The heavy vote is an indication that we were able to accomplish that.

That vote came after 24 hours of debate over the course of 8 weeks, and only after the Senate dispensed with 144 amendments.

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, the majority leader, has said we have been on this for 16 days. He has to say that with tongue in cheek. Many of those days have been Fridays and Mondays, when everyone knows when you turn to a bill for a day or two and it is a Friday or Monday, that is like turning to nothing. It is filler. Nothing happens. Most of those days the managers weren't even here. They said we are going to energy on short notice. The 16 days the distinguished Senator from Tennessee talked about really is more like 7 or 8 days.

As we know from past experience, the effort to craft comprehensive energy policy involves working through a series of complex issues. We are currently working through one of the most complex issues right now, electricity policy. These issues take time to debate, and we have a duty to the American consumer to ensure that we carefully consider what our energy policy will look like in the future. We have spent significantly less time debating the Energy bill this year. We have considered 42 amendments and held 15 rollcall votes. We have spent less than 7 days on this bill, considered 102 less amendments, and conducted 20 less rollcall votes than last year. There are a number of issues outstanding: Electricity; global warming; renewable portfolio standard; CAFE standards, on which we have debated two amendments but others need to be considered; hydroelectric dam relicensing; nuclear energy; natural gas; energy efficiency incentives; wind energy; carbon sequestration; exploration of the Outer Continental Shelf, and the energy tax package, just to name a few.

These amendments offered on this Energy bill dealing with electricity are not specious amendments, they are substantive amendments. The Cantwell amendment vote was 48 to 50. Without arm-twisting on the other side, Senator Cantwell would have won. These are serious amendments people wish to offer. They are not single amendment issues. I expect there will be several amendments on each subject. We ended with a good product last year when we let the Senate work its will on the legislation. We need to spend adequate time this year to get a similar result.

I see the Senator from Florida on the floor. My understanding is that he wishes to speak.

Madam President, the Senator has been here all day. It is my understanding that the Senator wishes to speak; is that right?

I thought the Senator had longer to speak.

Madam President, as I have said several times during the day, and yesterday and the day before, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from New Mexico. But the Senator from Florida, who is gracious and said he would take just a few minutes, has a right to speak as long as he wants to before we have votes on this.

I have the floor.

Madam President, I have the floor, and I have the right to speak about anything I want to speak about. The fact is, the Senator from Florida has been here several times today.

I have the floor, Madam President. I have the floor.

The Senator from Florida has been here several times during the day. He has a right, prior to our entering into this unanimous consent agreement, to speak for as long as he wants. He said he chooses not to do that, and that is in keeping with the courtesy that this junior Senator from Florida extends to everybody. I want to make sure he doesn't have hurt feelings and that he has the opportunity to speak. He knows the rules of the Senate and he has a right to speak if he wishes.

Having said that, I am willing now to have this unanimous consent agreement proffered.

Madam President, reserving the right to object, I ask if my friend, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, would modify his unanimous consent request to allow the Senator from Florida, prior to this kicking in, to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Madam President, I ask the Senator to further modify the request to eliminate the 2 minutes of debate prior to the vote.

I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) is necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea.''

Madam President, as I indicated last night, we have Senator Dayton who still wishes to offer amendments. Senator Cantwell has at least two more amendments. Senator Feinstein has an amendment. Those are the ones I know of at this time. And Senator Boxer has an amendment. Senator Cantwell is here. She has a very important amendment to offer.

I relate to my distinguished friend, the manager of this bill, that Senator Kennedy is here and wishes to speak also. We are in a position where we are ready to move forward on the electricity title with a number of amendments.

The Senator from New Mexico will have to ask Senator Kennedy.

I know the Senator from New Mexico has the floor.

Madam President, earlier today I alerted the Senate that we would have members of the Judiciary Committee come to the floor, and we have members of the Judiciary Committee here today. We have the Senator from Massachusetts, who is a three-decade member of that committee. We have Senator Schumer, who is a relatively new member of that committee. Sometime tonight they are going to speak on the Pryor nomination. I indicated that would happen, and that is going to happen. They have an absolute right to speak. I know the Senator from Massachusetts is being kind and generous, but he has a right to speak. It can either be done now or 5 minutes from now or 10 minutes from now, but the Senator from Massachusetts is going to get the floor, and he is going to speak on the Pryor nomination, as I alerted the Senate today that would happen.

We did not make the choice that we would vote for the seventh time on Estrada today. The votes have not changed. We did not make the decision

we would vote on Priscilla Owen. We have voted three times, and the votes have not changed. We did not make the decision that the Pryor nomination would be voted on without a single bit of debate on the Senate floor, but just move it forward for cloture. This is not as if it is a surprise.

We telegraphed our intentions today that there would be members of the Judiciary Committee who would come to the Chamber and speak, and that is going to happen tonight.

Mr. President, as the distinguished Senator from New Mexico said, the public should know. The public should know the following: The last 4 weeks the distinguished majority leader has been saying we are going to complete the Energy bill in 1 week. For 4 weeks, the minority has said: We cannot do that. There is not enough time to do that.

Last year, when we worked our way through this bill, there were 140- some odd amendments. This year, we have had stops and starts on this bill. The majority leader said we have been on it 16 days. Everyone knows that is simply not factual. We have been on it days but these were Fridays and Mondays when nothing was going on here.

Now, the public should know that in addition to having a difficult time finishing this bill in 1 week, the majority leader has made the decision to schedule votes on judges.

The public should know that the vote we took today on Miguel Estrada was the seventh time we have voted on this judge. There has not been a single vote change all seven votes but yet the valuable time of the Senate was taken on this wasteful exercise.

We also voted, for the third time, on Justice Owen from Texas. Votes have not changed on that. Also, another waste of time.

My friend from New Mexico says: Well, let's finish the debate on Pryor and then go to energy. The problem with that is, we have been told there is going to be another cloture motion filed on a judge. There has been no time spent on the floor on her, either, a woman from California by the name of Kuhl. So using the logic of the Senator from New Mexico, then we would take and debate all day Thursday, and some of Friday, prior to the vote on that.

We have not caused the stops and starts on this bill. Not only have we had stops and starts dealing with judges, which have slowed this up immensely, but we also have had thrown in here two trade bills, the Singapore and Chile trade bills. We still have 6 hours to complete on that debate.

The public should know there is not a single Democrat who opposes an Energy bill. We think this Energy bill is imperfect and there should be amendments filed on it. We have not filed a single amendment that has been, in any way, an effort to slow down this bill. There have been meaningful and important debates, and every vote has been extremely close. Had there been not arm-twisting on the other side on the Cantwell amendment and the Feingold amendment--people in the well wanted to vote with us but did not. As we know what happens down here in close votes, they were unable to vote with us.

These are not meaningless amendments. They have been very important amendments. As I have explained on several occasions, we have other amendments that are just as meaningful as these that have been filed.

We have also heard my friend from New Mexico say: We want to do this the American way. I don't know what that means. But that is what this is. We are in the Senate and we are doing things the American way, as established by the U.S. Constitution. That is how we are going to do things.

We did not make the decision to have the parliamentary posture as it is. That has been made by the majority leader. He has a right to do that, but he also has the obligation to know that the stops and starts on this Energy bill has made it virtually impossible to pass this bill.

Now, to have threats made--and that is what they are: You are going to be here Friday afternoon; you are going to be here Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday--well, that is the way it is. But always remember, any inconvenience that is caused to the Democrats will be caused to the Republicans also. Remember, there are two more of them than there are of us, so they will have a little extra inconvenience.

But this Senator and all 48 other Senators who are here in the minority are willing to work to complete whatever work needs to be done. But we are not going to be rushed into voting for a judge such as the man from Alabama who has been hustled out of the Committee of the Judiciary without proper debate in the committee itself. We are going to have proper debate in the Senate. We are going to have the American people know because the public should know. We are going to do it the American way.

We are going to hear the ranking member of the committee, who, by the way, has been responsible for our approving, during this administration, 140 Federal judges.

We have turned down two. The American public should know that. That is the American way. One-hundred and forty to two isn't that bad. Anybody who has a basic knowledge of math understands those are pretty good odds.

There is also a complaint that the distinguished ranking member has requested votes on some of these judges. Well, yes, and we have six judges now who could have been approved during the 4 hours we are going to be wasting on these cloture votes. In fact, we probably could have done all of them in the 4 hours set aside. Of course we could have.

The plaintive cries create no pity on our side. We are here ready to work on the Energy bill. If they don't want Senators from the Judiciary Committee and others speaking about Pryor, then let's not have a cloture vote tomorrow. Let's not have a cloture vote on Kuhl on Friday. We can spend more time on the Energy bill.

Until the majority leader understands that he is his own worst enemy, we are going to continue what we are doing to protect the rights of the American people because the public should know.

Reserving the right to object.

Objection.

Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?

I say to the Senator from Vermont, it is my understanding that the Senator has approximately 15 or 20 minutes on his speech. What the Senator wanted to do is yield to the Senator from California for 10 or 12 minutes, I think she said. Then it is my understanding that the request was the Senator from Utah be recognized for up to an hour, and then following that I would like to modify the request that the Senator from Illinois be recognized for up to 45 minutes

Reserving the right to object.

I have spoken to the distinguished junior Senator from Pennsylvania. He said the reason he objected is because he felt it was an unequal distribution of time. If that is the case, we want to make sure there is an equal distribution of time. Through the chair, to the Senator from Utah, I am wondering who wants to speak after the Senator from Utah. I am trying to figure out how to balance this out fairly.

We recognize that Senator Kennedy spoke for 20 minutes or so.

I do not think we should go back and forth. Whoever gets recognized should speak after the Senator from Utah.

Mr. President, I served in the Congress since 1972. I have had the good fortune to listen to some brilliant statements made on various subjects over 21 years. But I have to say that the statement by the senior Senator from Illinois tonight is the finest statement I have ever heard in some 21 years. I hope the people of Illinois know what pride we have in Dick Durbin.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I object.

The Senator from Nevada objects.

At this time, it would not.

Mr. President, if I can say briefly to the majority leader--I am speaking only for this Senator; the ultimate decision will be made, of course,

by the distinguished Democratic leader--from what has gone on today and the fact the distinguished majority leader has filed cloture on still another judge, I do not think there will be much done in the way of the Energy bill tomorrow on this side. We have to get ready for the Kuhl nomination, about which the two Senators from California feel very strongly.

I know it is the chairman's intention to work through amendments tomorrow on S. 14, but I think there will be a lot of other issues done and there will not be amendments offered on that bill. As I indicated when I started this brief statement, the ultimate decision will be made by Senator Daschle, but I am giving the majority my thoughts this evening.

I ask unanimous consent that the privilege of the floor be granted to Erica Buehrens, a legislative fellow on the staff of Senator Edwards.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Lisa Polk from the Finance Committee be granted the privileges of the floor for the remainder of the day.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I ask the majority leader this through the Chair: Senator Boxer has asked that she be in charge of this 8 hours of debate, which the Democratic leader certainly has agreed to. We would like some commitment from the majority leader that these 8 hours won't start in the middle of the night sometime and that she will be able to use her 8 hours at a reasonable time, during the day or early evening. We hope the majority leader could give us that assurance.

I have no objection.

Mr. President, let the Record be spread with the fact that every Democrat in the Senate supports an Energy bill. There is not a single Senator who opposes an Energy bill.

I know that the distinguished majority leader has talked about our having been on this for 16 days--and we have been. But many of them have been extremely short days--Thursday afternoons and Friday mornings; a few days here and a few days there.

I think what we have to be concerned about is not how many days we have spent on it but the question is, Is this bill as good as it should be? I think the answer is a glaring no at this stage.

We have been willing to work with the majority to find consensus on a host of issues. There is not a single Senator on the other side of the aisle who I have worked more closely with than the chairman of the Energy Committee, the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico. Not only have I worked with him on the Energy bill but I have worked with him on the Appropriations Committee. He and I have done energy and water bills for years. I have great respect for him. I know how badly he wants an Energy bill. He tells me once or twice a day. I know how important it is for him to move this bill through the Senate. But we can't move a bill through the Senate that doesn't have debate on important issues such as climate change, CAFE, electricity, renewable portfolio standards, and the tax title.

We on this side of the aisle are concerned about jobs. When we look at the last administration and 8 years, President Clinton created 25 million jobs. This administration and this President--as long as we have kept records where we have lost jobs--lost 3 million jobs in the private sector. I think that says it all.

On the Alaskan pipeline issue, I offered that amendment on the floor. That amendment passed. I am glad it did pass. We support that. It is good for the economy. It is good for the security of this Nation to bring that gas from Alaska. We want to do that.

We talked about Medicare legislation and doing that more quickly. Of course, that was bipartisan legislation. It makes it a little easier.

We have a number of northwestern Senators who are desperate to work out something on the electricity title. They could not get a copy of-- it is a major title to this legislation--until late Friday night. Some got it but most didn't get it until yesterday; then to be asked, as we were yesterday, to go right to the electricity title.

There are three amendments pending. I think without any question we can have a vote on CAFE by 10:45 or 11 o'clock, according to how much time the opposition takes on it. I think we can do that quickly. We have discussed it with Senators Levin and Stabenow. Of course, there are others on the majority side who joined with these Senators on another CAFE amendment. That should take a very short period of time--I would say an hour or something like that, I would estimate.

Then we have to figure out some way as to what will be done with the Campbell amendment. Then there is nothing to stop us from going to the electricity title. There will be some debate on that. It is an extremely important issue for us.

As I said, I have the highest respect and regard for my friend from New Mexico, the senior Senator.

I don't see how we can do this bill this week. We are going to try. It is not as if this is some guerrilla attack. We have been saying all along that we need more time than this to complete the bill.

But on this side of the aisle, we recognize the importance of this legislation. We want to do what we can but there are certain issues that require debate and deliberation. We are going to make sure it takes place. If we have to stay in through next week, we have to stay in through next week. But there are issues that are so important to this country that we have to make sure that whatever bill comes out is the best bill we can get.

Objection.

Mr. President, under the present parliamentary situation, of course, it takes consent to withdraw because we have a finite list of amendments. We have at least one Senator here whom we have to protect. As a result of that, I object.

But of course, Mr. President, we have two amendments ahead of that. It is not parliamentary procedure that is proper at this stage. When we get to the Campbell amendment, the distinguished Democratic leader said the Senator would have to do what he wanted in that regard. We stand on that.

But even at that time, even if the other two amendments were gone, the alternatives are, as the Senator said, second-degreeing the amendment or disposing of it with a motion to table or some other thing. But just to agree to withdraw it, I am not in a position to do that right now.

Mr. President, I had the floor, and I will yield in just 1 second. I would also say, so there is not a problem in the future, I don't think you can amend the Campbell amendment with an electricity title under the rules that are now before the Senate. I would just alert Senators to that.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. President, I am wondering if the distinguished Democratic leader's reaction, when he and I read the front page of the New York Times today, was the same as mine--amazement, bewilderment-- when reading on the front of the New York Times: ``Pentagon Prepares a Futures Market on Terrorist Attacks''?

The Pentagon office that proposed spying electronically on

Americans to monitor potential terrorists has a new

experiment. It is an online futures trading market, disclosed

today . . . in which anonymous speculators would bet on

forecasting terrorist attacks, assassinations, and coups.

Traders bullish on a biological attack on Israel or bearish

on the chances of a North Korean missile strike would have

the opportunity to bet on the likelihood of such events on a

new Internet site established by the . . . [Pentagon].

Did the Senator read that in disbelief?

Mr. President, Senator Durbin has always been agreeable to that. He has indicated he would want probably 45 minutes.

And Senator Stabenow may want 10 or 15 minutes. We will check with her. I am sure we can do it within an hour on our side. I would propose that on the Durbin amendment there be 1 hour of debate on our side, that there be no second-degree amendments in order, and we would then vote on or in relation to the Durbin amendment.

I say to my friend from New Mexico that we have seen the proposal. We are not going to agree to the

unanimous consent agreement that was given to me.

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield so I may comment briefly, I think we have tried to be as reasonable as we can on the Durbin amendment, which is the pending amendment. The Senator from Illinois has agreed from the beginning on a time agreement. That still stands.

Will the Senator yield?

Perhaps Senator Durbin can start his debate, and as soon as the unanimous consent request is prepared, perhaps he will yield the floor so the Senator may put the request to the Chair.

The unanimous consent request says ``on or in relation'' to the amendment.

And as to Senator Domenici's request, Senator Durbin's time will be counted against the time in the order; is that right?

Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for a unanimous consent request, I ask that Senator Domenici now be recognized to offer a unanimous consent agreement.

Mr. President, I ask that the distinguished chairman of the committee modify his amendment to allow Senator Bingaman 5 minutes to speak after Senator Lott on the Levin amendment.

Nothing happens until 11:15, and then we go to a judge. So the Senator has plenty of time to speak.

Mr. President, I ask the distinguished manager of the bill if he would modify the agreement to allow Senator Harkin 30 minutes.

Yes.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

I take this opportunity to tell the Senator from Illinois through the Chair that this is the most important amendment dealing with the environment that will be offered all year. I was asked in a television interview yesterday what I believed was the most important environmental issue facing America today. I said fuel efficiency of automobiles. There is not a close second.

I believe in the Clean Air Act, clean water, endangered species, historical preservation, and there is not an issue that is more important to the people of America and to the world than fuel efficiency of these cars and trucks in America today.

I want the record to be spread with the fact that the Senator from Illinois has offered, in my opinion, the most important environmental amendment that could be offered this Congress. I give the Senator my support.

I know what the vote was previously on this issue. We will probably lose this, which is too bad. The majority of the people in America support this amendment. The majority of people in America support this legislation. The Senate does not. That is too bad. On this issue we are not reflecting the will of the American people.

Does the Senator acknowledge that?

Mr. President, if I could, just for a matter of parliamentary procedure, at 11:15 we consider the judges. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Mississippi be allowed to complete his statement before we start with the judgeship. It would be 3 minutes later. Is that what the Senator wants?

We would extend consideration of the judgeship for 3 minutes.

Yes but not now. We are going to the judge at 11:15. The Senator from Mississippi has the floor.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham) the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay.''

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

Mr. President, there is an order floating around here on the floor that sets forth about 7 hours of debate on these two trade agreements, the

Singapore and Chilean trade agreements. Is that true?

It has been obtained?

It is my understanding the Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, has an hour under that agreement. Is that true?

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein be allowed to use her hour on the trade agreements at this time.

Mr. President, under the order now in effect, we have to take somebody's time.

To take whose time?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, pending are the Durbin amendment, the Levin amendment, another Durbin amendment, and the Campbell amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein CAFE amendment be the next Democratic amendment in order. I recognize that the right of first recognition comes on the other side. I want there to be an agreement though that the next amendment we would offer would be that of Senator Feinstein dealing with CAFE.

Mr. President, I will yield in a brief minute to the junior Senator from Michigan. While the acting leader is here, I want the record to reflect we are doing everything we can to cooperate in the consideration of this Energy bill. There was an hour we could have done nothing because there was no one here to do anything because they are meeting at the White House. In an effort to expedite matters, there was an order pending on the Singapore and Chile trade agreements. There are 7 hours of debate in an order here before we vote on that; we used an hour of that time even though that was not anything we had to do.

If we were trying to ``slow walk,'' as was said here today, that would have been an easy way to slow walk. The Senator from California came to the floor and used her hour.

The record should reflect this Energy bill is a very complex bill. People in good faith have different views on the legislation. As I said this morning, there is not a single Democratic Senator who does not want an Energy bill.

No. He is not yielding back his time.

Mr. President, now that the manager of the bill is here, I renew a unanimous consent request that I made a short time ago. I ask unanimous consent that the Feinstein CAFE amendment be the next Democratic amendment in order. In addition to the unanimous consent request, I know the Republican manager has first right of recognition, but there is going to come a time when we offer our next amendment. I am alerting everyone that it will be the Feinstein CAFE amendment.

Mr. President, I have the floor.

I ask unanimous consent to have the Lautenberg time.

Mr. President, all day we have heard that we are slow- walking this bill. In an effort to help manage what goes on here, we have asked the Senator from California who has a CAFE amendment to be the next in order. We have 382 amendments. We have about half of them over here. Any one of the Senators can call up any one of their amendments. I think it would be in the best interest of the Senate if we have an orderly process for offering these amendments. This does not disadvantage the majority in any way. We have done what we can to help move this bill forward. Senator Feinstein spoke. She came over to offer this amendment and couldn't do it.

Mr. President, so there is no misunderstanding. I ask unanimous consent--this is for the Democratic Senators--that next Democratic amendment that we offer, whenever that might be, will be the Feinstein CAFE amendment.

That is right.

We will vote. Following that vote we have two amendments to dispose of--another Durbin amendment which may work out very easily, and the second is the Campbell amendment. Following that, we have been advised on several occasions that the majority who has first right of recognition wants to offer the new electricity section.

That is fine. Whenever we offer our next amendment, Senator Feinstein will offer her amendment on CAFE.

Will the Senator yield?

This will be off of Senator Lautenberg's time. The Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, has asked that the proponents of these amendments have some time to speak before the votes take place. Senator Durbin should be able to speak last, which is normal; it is his amendment. I want to make sure everybody has ample time to speak. The Senator from Missouri said he wants 2 or 3 minutes. Is that OK if Senator Bond has 2 minutes?

The Senator said you are going to be first.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 4 minutes equally divided.

I modify my request to that effect.

Reserving the right to object, the Senator from New Mexico, the manager of this bill, can have whatever time he wants.

I announce that the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Lieberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``yea''.

I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Edwards), the Senator from Florida (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), and the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Leberman) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry) would vote ``nay''.

Objection. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

If I could ask the Senator from New Mexico a question?

As I understand it, the Senator indicated what he would like to do tonight on the electricity title is have people come and offer amendments on the electricity title.

Senator Bingaman has an amendment. Senator Cantwell perhaps has an amendment. There are a number of other Senators who wish to maybe offer amendments. The question I have to ask the Senator from New Mexico is, there are people who have amendments on other issues, separate and apart from the electricity title, and at least two Senators have asked if the Senator from New Mexico would allow the electricity title to be set aside and go to other areas.

I understand.

If I could respond, the manager of the bill on our side does have another amendment he could offer tonight. I would like to continue my colloquy with the Senator from New Mexico, through the Chair. We have people wondering, are we going to vote on the first Bingaman amendment now, the second Bingaman amendment; are we are going to have two votes? What is the pleasure of the Senator from New Mexico?

I respond to my friend from New Mexico, I do not think that is going to happen. Senator Cantwell, for example, has amendments she wants to offer. She wants to take a little time on the first amendment. It is going to be more than a few minutes. She has asked for some time on that. If we cannot agree on a time, I assume she would talk for a little while and then offer the amendment.

Well, she is ready to offer her first amendment but that is going to take some time. I do not know if she is willing to finish the debate on it tonight. I could call and ask her.

I say to my friend from New Mexico, I think realistically if Senator Cantwell's is going to be the next amendment, it will be very difficult to finish all of the electricity amendments tonight. There are other people who want to offer amendments.

I say to my friend from New Mexico, as I said earlier today, I know how hard he has worked to get the bill here and how important this bill is to him personally, and how important he believes this is for the country, but I say as sincerely as I can we are not going to be able to offer all the amendments on electricity tonight. I just do not think it will happen. I will go to the cloakroom and make some calls while the second Bingaman amendment is offered, but I think if the Senator's statement is that we are going to have to vote on the two Bingaman amendments unless we finish offering amendments tonight, we are going to have to vote on the two Bingaman amendments because I do not think we can get through all the amendments tonight.

I will be happy to respond to the Senator in the next little bit.

Mr. President, I need to confer with the Democratic leader about the question asked by the Senator from New Mexico. In the interim, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, be recognized to speak for up to 5 minutes as in morning business regarding an unfortunate death of one of his close friends.

I indicated to my friend, the distinguished senior Senator from New Mexico, and Senator Bingaman, the manager on our side, that I would check to find out what we have in the way of amendments.

This is certainly an incomplete list. We have not hot-lined this, but we have had people call the cloakroom. We have five Senators who wish to offer amendments at this stage. We have at least one of those Senators who is going to offer multiple amendments--multiple means maybe three, maybe four amendments.

To make a long story short and not take undue time, we would be agreeable to having the second Bingaman amendment debated tonight. We would lay down the first Cantwell amendment with the understanding that she will lay that amendment down tonight and debate it for an hour tonight. She wants 2 hours on it tomorrow.

If the Senator from New Mexico, the chairman of the committee, does not want to agree to this, then we should have the two votes on Bingaman, and likely we will not offer any more amendments tonight.

If my friend will yield for one other thing I should have said before?

As the Senator from New Mexico knows, this electricity title is very important to some Members of the Senate. None of these amendments, I want the record to reflect, are done in any way to slow up, slow walk, or stop this bill. These amendments, as has been seen by the amendments of the Senator from New Mexico, are amendments offered in good faith to try to improve this bill.

No.

That is true. New source review.

We couldn't agree to that.

If Senator Cantwell debates for 2 hours, that is 11 o'clock.

And we have three votes, that takes us to about 12 or 12:15. That would be almost humanly impossible.

I say to my friend, I have no authority. I am dealing with five Senators who are all Senators in their own right. I am here just trying to help a little and take phone calls from them, things of that nature. Some of them, frankly, are out doing other things tonight. We could not agree to that.

The Democratic leader, with whom I spoke just a few minutes ago, indicates he thinks, and I would acknowledge he is probably right in this regard, about as far as we can go tonight is lay Cantwell down, get a time agreement on hers. Maybe during--not maybe, but during the morning hours when she is debating hers, we would be able to try to come up with a list of amendments.

But any one of these Senators can object to a finite list. I just don't see anything happening in the next few hours.

I say to my friend, I am very happy to do that. One thing that people on my side--and, frankly, I have gotten a call from somebody on your side. Are there going to be any votes tonight?

Then there will be no Cantwell amendment offered tonight. As soon as Bingaman is offered, we can vote on that, and there will be no Cantwell amendments tonight.

I say, Senator Bingaman is going to take a little bit of time. He said he wouldn't take very long. But if he takes a half hour and there is response to that, we are not going to finish what we are doing now until 8:30, quarter to 9. Senator Cantwell is not going to offer an amendment at that time.

If you want to finish Bingaman, have Cantwell laid down tonight, and have Cantwell come in in the morning, that is fine. Have votes whenever you want them, but if we are going to have votes on Bingaman, we are not going to offer any more amendments tonight.

I say through the Chair to my dear friend, the senior Senator from New Mexico, that I don't think it is possible to get an agreement locking in these amendments. I just do not think it is possible. I don't want to act in bad faith. I would like to do that. I believe in an orderly body. But I just don't think I can get that done. We have people off the Hill and people just automatically object to things at this time of night. I don't think we can get it done.

If I could through the Chair, is the Senator from New Mexico saying that tomorrow we are going to move off of the electricity title into other areas?

I understand very clearly the chairman of the committee.

Very fair.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is my understanding, then, that the request is that Senator Cantwell would be able to lay down her amendment tonight, that she would have up to 1 hour tonight, 2 hours tomorrow, and there would be no tabling motion before that 2 hours is up in the morning.

No question about that.

Mr. President, if I could respond to the Senator from Washington, that is your choice. You have 3 hours on this amendment. You can either offer it tonight or in the morning. But if you offer it in the morning, the time you are taking tonight would run against your time. So if you take more than an hour tonight, you will lose it in the morning.

Mr. President, I say to my friend from New Mexico, the Senator from Washington--as long as she knows she has a total of 3 hours on her amendment--would have no problem sharing that with you tonight.