Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today in remembrance of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on our country. On this second anniversary of that fateful day, many of the emotions we felt are still very real. We continue to feel grief for those who were lost. We continue to feel admiration for the bravery of our policemen and firefighters. And we continue to feel shock over that day's inconceivable violence. The reality is that these emotions may be at the front of America's conscience for years to come, but it is my hope today that for those families who lost loved ones, each passing day brings with it some measure of healing.

In addition to the emotional impact of the attacks, September 11, 2001 also had a profound effect on U.S. national security policy. The use of asymmetrical means by terrorists to inflict mass casualties altered our traditional view of who terrorists are and how we must confront them.

No longer do we view terrorist acts as isolated events committed by a few extremists. Rather, 21st century terrorists have shown themselves to be organized, well-financed, and deeply committed to a doctrine of violence. We know this doctrine is aimed at undermining our economy, our infrastructure, and our sense of personal security. We also know it is based upon a willingness to employ weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets.

This reality has forced both our political leaders and military planners to rethink the American premise about where and how to use armed force. And the result is that the specter of another WMD attack against our population means we can no longer subscribe to the long- held principle that the United States will attack only after being attacked. Instead, we must act preemptively to best protect innocent Americans from a replay of the 9/11 tragedy.

Preemption means taking the offensive. It means taking the battle to the terrorists before they attack us. It requires good intelligence and cooperation from our friends and allies from around the world. And immediately after the terrorist attacks of September 11, many nations pledged such cooperation and actively supported our actions in Afghanistan.

For example, President Chirac of France was the first head-of-state to visit the United States after the attacks, pledging to join in the fight to defend civilization from the scourge of terrorism. Indeed, no country showed a greater outpouring of sympathy for the United States in the immediate aftermath of the attacks than did France. Similarly, a poll conducted in Germany in the autumn of 2001 showed that after the attacks in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania, an increased number of Germans, 58 percent, saw the U.S. as Germany's most important partner. To be sure, this solidarity was greatly appreciated during our dark time of September 2001.

The tragedy that America experienced, and that elicited such international sympathy, was the same tragedy that prompted us to adopt this preemptive military doctrine. It was the tragedy of September 11 that made us say to governments who would sponsor terrorism and supply terrorists with weapons of mass destruction, ``disarm or we will act to disarm you before your weapons can hurt our people.'' And this is what led us to act against Saddam Hussein, a proven killer who steadfastly refused to prove he no longer had WMDs that the world knew he had after the Gulf War.

Many of our coalition partners understood the imperative of acting against a thug like Saddam Hussein in a post 9/11 world. They remembered the pain we endured and knew our actions in Iraq were a direct response to preventing a similar tragedy. But other nations did not recognize a link between illegitimate regimes like Iraq's and the terrorist threat facing the civilized world. The war on terror will continue to be difficult and will require tough decisions like those faced in deposing Saddam Hussein. It is my hope that all of our allies will join in a unified front in this war both in good times, and in bad.

I want to say in closing how proud I am of many of the contributions that my home State has made in executing the war on terror. It was our F-117 stealth aircraft pilots who answered the President's call to take the first action against Saddam Hussein's regime. Furthermore, New Mexicans have fought and died heroically in both Afghanistan and Iraq. For that, we owe our deepest gratitude and respect.

Our national laboratories have also made immense contributions to the war against terrorism, both ahead of 9/11 and with increasing emphasis post-9/11. They provided critical support in identifying strains of anthrax, and a biothreat detection system that was fielded at the Olympics as well as locations around the District of Columbia.

Sandia invented the material that was heavily used in ridding the Hart building of anthrax concerns. Both labs have led the national efforts to control materials suitable for weapons of mass destruction. From weapons grade materials to materials suitable for dirty bombs, the labs have developed detectors and technologies to help secure and dispose of these materials. The systems used in monitoring international trade for any radioactive materials that could become weapons against us are largely from the New Mexico labs. They are providing computing resources through the National Infrastructure and Analysis Center of NISAC to model complex events that could threaten our Nation and develop mitigation strategies.

I close by again remembering all the brothers and sisters we lost on September 11, 2001, and all those who have sacrificed in the ensuing war. Let our enemies not doubt that we will continue to pursue them wherever they may hide and will not stop until our victory is complete. God bless our soldiers and their families, and may God bless America.

Mr. President, I compliment the distinguished Senator Reid for his brief remarks regarding this day, and for myself merely say I am among those Americans who never thought it could happen to us. While I sat in my den with my wife on the morning it happened, I was about as incredulous as anyone could be. After I heard more about it, and they told me it was real, I was still disbelieving. I was still incredulous.

But now we look back and we know we are no longer invulnerable. We are no longer so powerful that we can say anything of danger to us will be fought far away. We know the kind of enemy that confronts us is very different than the enemies we have confronted during the lifetime of our Nation.

This is a tough one. This is a unique one. This is one run by crazy men, by people who do not understand or reason as we do.

So I am very pleased, with all the politics at home, that I can stand here and say I feel pretty confident we are doing better, that we are better off than the day this happened, that we are safer than the day it happened, that our big cities are safer. Certainly we are not totally safe. But I wonder whether anybody will ever be able to tell us we have done everything, we have spent every nickel, we have done every program, and we are totally safe from terrorists. I doubt that very much.

In some regards we are lacking. Let us hope we have the wisdom so on the third anniversary we can stand here and say we have even done better, and it is more farfetched that they would succeed. Let's hope we can do that.

For now, I am very proud of an open and free society that made changes to accommodate to this scourge of venom. We had to change a few things, but we did it. We had to spend some extra dollars, but we did. We had to make some cities much safer, but we helped them do it. And then we fought a war for it.

Clearly, when you look back at it all, we did pretty well. For a free nation, we did pretty well. It is pretty easy to mobilize when you are not free. It is pretty easy to fight when you are a dictator. It is pretty difficult to fight against terrorism when you are a democracy and you have to do it openly, in public, and fight them openly, in public, and be criticized openly and in public. It is very hard, but we have done it.

Madam President, while we are now on this energy-water appropriations bill, let me first thank my friend, Senator Harry Reid from Nevada, as the ranking member of this subcommittee, for the hard work he and his staff put into this bill. We have a great bill. The Senate will find that out in the next 2 or 3 days. I am hopeful there will only be a few amendments. We kind of know what they are. We do not intend to discuss them until those proponents come to the floor and offer them, but we know about them and we think we can have a serious debate Monday. I understand maybe we can't vote on Monday. If we can, we will, and dispose of that serious nuclear amendment--antinuclear development amendment. If not, we would do it on Tuesday.

But I hope nobody intends to use this bill as a Christmas tree for authorizations. I can assure them they will meet great resistance from this Senator. This is not an authorization bill for electricity. That is somewhere else, another bill. It is in the conference. We have already voted. We will not consider that, and if we do, it will not matter because I will not bring back from conference any energy amendments that belong on the authorization bill, creating the policy for the energy future of our country.

With that, I move now to the business before the Senate.

Today the Senate is going to consider one of the 13 appropriations bills. It is a small one, but it is a very important one. We worked very hard this year to put together what we think is a fair bill under extremely difficult circumstances. This fiscal 2004 allocation to the subcommittee is $27 billion, an amount that is only $367 million over the President's request. This situation posed a daunting challenge to the subcommittee.

Let me put that in context. All of the Members here know the President's request dramatically cut water projects. The occupant of the Chair knows that--it cut water projects well below the current year level and left out many projects we had to do.

Furthermore, the President proposed to fund a portion of the Corps of Engineers budget, an amount of $145 million, in a way the Congressional Budget Office says is not permissible. If it is not permissible and we did it, it would be subject to a point of order--even though the Congressional Budget Office gives the President credit for the mechanism in this scoring request.

Thus, we have included a provision that will make an additional $145 million available to the Corps to spend on the enactment of the provision in authorizing legislation that is required under the rules of the Congressional Budget Office. We think that is the way to do it.

But for now, the long and the short of all of this is that the President's request was $530 million below the current year level for water projects, and we only received an increase from the appropriations process of $367 million.

There is nothing that Senators and House Members are more aware of than water projects in their home States. I do not know if they are as important as the Members think. But I only can tell you that if you are chairman of this committee, you cannot get by without Senators stuffing your pockets with the requests and sending them to your office, saying: Don't forget; don't forget. We have a pile of them. I didn't bring them to the floor. There are more than a few hundred.

The bill spreads the increased allocation generally as follows:

An additional $233 million to the Corps water projects; an additional $67 million to the Bureau of Reclamation water projects; an additional $80 million to independent regional commissions which were badly cut in the President's request, such as the Denali Regional Commission of Alaska, the Appalachia Regional Commission, and the Delta Regional Commission; and we held the Department of Energy at just about the President's request level.

I believe--and I think Senator Reid will agree with me--that this was the fairest way to distribute the very limited resources. It was the fairest in any sense of the word, and also in the sense of the word of what our Members expect of us and what they can expect of us in doing our job correctly.

The bill provides $4.43 billion for the Corps of Engineers. That is $233 million above the President's request but $212 million below the current year's level. We have included no new construction projects and have focused our resources on restoring the cuts to existing construction projects.

For the Bureau of Reclamation and related activities, the bill provides $990 million, which is $67 million above the President's request but only $17 million above the current year level.

For nuclear weapons activities of the National Nuclear Security Administration--known as NNSA--the bill provides $6.47 billion, which is $96 million more than the President's request and $492 million over the current year level.

The budget increases are consistent with a major Defense Department initiative to restore our nuclear weapons complex.

Mr. President, I told you when we opened the bill that it was a small bill. But it has a lot in it. It pays for the National Nuclear Security Administration. That is the laboratories and the administration. Among its charges is making sure scientifically, with the science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program--meaning these laboratories have to engage in all kinds and varieties of science--that they tell us our weapons are valid without testing them.

For most of our adult life we tested them, so we had no doubt. Great scientists hooked them up and the great desert provided the test site. And we tested them. But we voted to quit it. We didn't vote to stop having nuclear weapons; we just voted not to test them.

Somebody has the responsibility when you stop testing them to be in a position of reporting to the Chief Executive and, thus, then to us whether the weapons are still valid. Some of them are 30 or 35 years old. I don't know whether they are 40 years old yet. But they are pretty old for nuclear weapons. So somebody has to do that. That is the work of the National Nuclear Security Administration and the laboratories, and this bill has to pay for that.

For nuclear nonproliferation activities, it is important that we understand this little bill funds $1.34 billion, which is the same as the President's request, and $171 million above the current level. The committee continues its leadership role in countering nuclear terrorism. The budget request, coupled with $148 million added in last year's supplemental, gives a strong boost to this highly important program.

When we speak of terror in the world, we now have almost stopped talking about nuclear terrorism because we speak so much about biological terrorism and chemical terrorism. But we cannot forget that the granddaddy of all terrorist activities is a nuclear terrorist activity.

Nonproliferation is the effort of our Government to try to keep the things that people might use for nuclear weapons or to keep them out of the hands of those who might put them together and use them. That is a big job.

This is a little bill with a lot of money--$1.34 billion for that effort. We have great laboratory people engaged in that.

Then there is the ``Isn't good news provision.'' We have been paying to clean up energy sites for many years. These are the sites that remained from the cold-war era in the development of nuclear weapons and plutonium in various parts of America, such as the Savannah River area, areas in the west coast and Washington--environmental cleanup sites.

This bill provides an incredible amount of money--$7.6 billion. But believe it or not, that is $62 million below the President's request. For the first time in many years, it is less than the previous year-- $238 million less.

The subcommittee was not required to add huge additional amounts to maintain cleanup budgets around the country. This is an unknown--almost secret--success of this Department of Energy. They said they would do it when they took office, but they have been saying it as they took office in that Department for 12 years, that I am aware of, and each year it was more--not less.

We finally have a couple of projects--led by one in Colorado--which have timeframes for completion which is credible and near at hand. There are some that are going to go on for a long time. But at least since this money comes out of the defense of our country, the Defense Department might be hopeful that as they increase their defense dollars we will not have to suck away large amounts to pay for this cleanup, although I am not yet making that as a promise because there are a few of these sites for which we are not absolutely certain how long it will take and how much it will cost. But they have become extremely, extremely expensive sites with thousands of people employed.

The frustration level for a Senator such as me paying for it year after year is very high. I didn't think the cleanup sites were supposed to be public works projects. I thought they were supposed to be cleanup sites.

But there is a lot of justification and a lot of reasoning, and we are not responsible for all of them. But some of them we have to fix, and we are trying.

Then there is a great issue in the State of my friend, Harry Reid, of Yucca Mountain. The project at Yucca causes the Senate to provide $425 million for 2004 construction. That is $166 million below the President's request, and $32 million less than the current level. But this project will be a major point of contention in conference with the House, which has increased the project by $180 million over the request.

This is a very important matter to many members of the subcommittee, each for various reasons, and it will require additional work as we move through the process.

For renewable energy research and development, believe it or not, we even found the money--$459 million, which is $15 million more than the President's request and $40 million more than this year--for renewables.

The committee funds the President's new hydrogen technology initiative.

For nuclear energy research and development, the bill provides $437 million, which is $447 million above the President's request and $63 million over a comparable current bill level. The Members know this is a great priority of mine as we continue to make investments. I believe it will eventually result in the construction of a new commercial power reactor, or more than one, in the United States. We will provide a total of $35 million toward the development of a new reactor in Idaho that could produce both electricity and hydrogen. We are not alone in this goal and in this kind of project. Japan is on the way. Japan is substantially ahead in terms of a timeframe for hydrogen engines in automobiles. Yet it is not something that will happen quickly. It is a few years away even for them, like 10, and, who knows, more than that for us. But we had better get started since we know we are hugely dependent upon oil from foreign countries.

Basic research for the Department of Energy: $3.36 billion, which is $50 million above the President and $88 million above this year. We talk about research. We had a big debate last night about research at the National Institutes of Health, a huge debate. We are researching the human body and the ways we might give health where the bodies are sick and find solutions to illnesses that besiege us. We are spending a huge amount of money in that field. I think the figure was well over the $25 billion mark.

The other agency that does research, but in physics and other sciences, is the Department of Energy. We do not treat it right; we only have $3.36 billion. That is $88 million more than last year for all of their research.

The bill provides $48.5 million for the Denali Commission, $58 million for the Appalachian Regional Commission, and $7 million for the Delta Regional Authority, an increase of $5 million over the President's request and $1 million below the current year level.

The bill also provides a total budget of $619 million for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the same as the budget request and an increase of $41 million over the current year level.

Given the overall constraints, we worked hard but were unfortunately limited to accommodating only the highest priority requests of Members where possible. This is going to be a difficult year, but I look forward to the recommendations of other Members.

Finally, the Senate should be fully aware that the committee reported bill includes a provision regarding the Middle Rio Grande River in New Mexico. The provision does two things. First it prohibits the use of outer-basin water for endangered species purposes. Second, it establishes how the Endangered Species Act will be complied with for this river and the affected fish. This is a very important provision that has the bipartisan support in the New Mexico delegation and at the state level.

Before I yield to the floor and my Ranking Member for his statement, I would like to thank him and his excellent staff for all the effort he has put forth in getting this bill put together.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Reid for his kind remarks. I think he knows that for each and every comment he made, I have

nothing but reciprocal feelings toward him. I thank him for his hard work and for working with me to get this good bill.

There are two things in this bill that are always misunderstood, and administration after administration makes it difficult. One is the Corps of Engineers. It is kind of amazing, whenever we get in trouble and we want somebody to build something for us someplace overseas, the Corps of Engineers is asked to supervise it and manage it and hire the people and the contractors--whether it is in Saudi Arabia or Iraq. And then at home, every President cuts the Corps of Engineers and leaves us in a position where we cannot sustain those numbers. So we have a bill that gets more difficult all the time.

This year, the President didn't do as badly; nonetheless, the same sequence was followed. We are trying to fix it somewhat. It has put us in the position where we cannot quite do it. We will be talking with other people in the Senate about some very serious emergency matters, which are not covered here, that we might very much have the Senate consider putting in this bill.

Second, people don't know we run three giant nuclear laboratories. That means we have to keep the best scientists in the world and their families living in the area, especially Los Alamos, which is a city built only for nuclear. That means we have to modernize because scientists are living in modern times. They want to work in modern facilities, not 50-year-old buildings. We are in the process of modernizing the workplace in Los Alamos in particular. Some don't understand that that is a must. We have to spend money to do it. In addition, as part of maintaining a rigorous core of nuclear weapons, there are certain scientific activities these laboratories have to do, so they are always on the cutting edge in terms of keeping these the most safe weapons. That means they have to do research--the most cutting-edge kind. You cannot have scientists at Sandia Laboratory or Los Alamos researching in depth a new science called nanoscience in shacks or in 50-year-old buildings. We are in the process of rebuilding modern facilities for this kind of science. We are going to bring companies and individuals to work with these great scientists as this new field of nanoscience is developed.

The same is true with microengineering, which is another incredible field. We have to do that, too. They need to use some microengineering aspects in replacing parts of nuclear weapons, to keep them safe. So we have to have facilities. We are in the process of building facilities-- the greatest in the world--to take microengineering and develop it.

Microengineering, to put it in a simple way, is a wafer we use now for computers. The wafer we are talking about in microengineering contains on it thousands of machines, or engines. These little machines can be formulated to work, one with the other, on a wafer. When you see it with a magnifying glass, you say what in the world is next for humankind, and what are they going to do with these? Nobody knows yet, but it will be part of the next generation. Perhaps medical science will use them. Perhaps it will be injected into the human body and these little machines will go to work and do things in the body, or for the body, such as clean out parts around the heart by just eating them up. We don't know. But those are things that are in these laboratories. We get excited when we hear and see them.

So when we fund these buildings, we are funding something great for our country. People don't believe us and they think maybe we should not be doing some of it, but we have been generally prevailing. The Senate has been saying let's do it, let's keep on.

Madam President, we are finished for the evening. We have nothing else to do, and we have no indication that anybody else wants to do anything. From my standpoint, I am going to finish now.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

I ask unanimous consent that Kris Schaffer of my staff be given floor privileges during consideration of this Energy and water bill.

Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, Senator Harkin. The Harkin amendment would prohibit the Department of Labor from pursuing a proposed rule to modernize the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime regulations.

In 1938, Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act to protect the lowest paid of our nations working population. The Fair Labor Standards Act guarantees overtime pay for all employees who work over 40 hours in one week, except for those employed in certain ``white collar'' jobs. Unfortunately, the current regulations have not been revised since the 1950s and employers face serious challenges in trying to interpret this law and classify modern jobs into categories created in a different era. Consequently, what should be a simple test, has become a very complex one with little certainty.

Thankfully, this past March, the Department of Labor proposed changes that would update the regulations to reflect the realities of our 21st century workplace. The purpose of these new

regulations is not, as many claim, to take away overtime pay from hardworking Americans; nobody wants that to occur. The purpose of these new regulations is to bring up to date overtime regulations so that employers will be better able to understand their obligations and comply with the law, and the Department of Labor will be better equipped to more vigorously enforce the law.

If adopted, the Department of Labor proposal will guarantee overtime pay for any employee making less than $22,100 per year ($425 per week) regardless of the person's job duties. Current regulations only provide guaranteed overtime for those making less than $8,060 per year ($155 per week). This is almost a 175 percent increase and will mean that an additional 1.3 million employees nationwide will be guaranteed overtime pay under the proposed changes. In my home state of New Mexico, the Department of Labor estimates that enactment of this proposal would automatically guarantee overtime pay for 10,000 additional workers, and that these workers would receive $3,878,398 every year in additional overtime pay.

The proposed regulations will not deny overtime pay to any workers based on salary alone; in fact, they will make it easier to determine which employees meet specific tests and thus qualify for ``exempt'' status. These exempt employees will continue to qualify for overtime pay.

The proposed regulations will not affect employees paid pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements, thus unionized employees will continue to have the right to bargain for overtime pay, regardless of salary or job duties.

The proposed regulations will not affect the right to overtime for non-white-collar workers such as police officers, firefighters or other first responders. This fact has been acknowledged in a recent press release from the Fraternal Order of Police.

Modernization and reform of the Fair Labor Standards Act regulations has been on the Labor Department's regulatory agenda since the 1970s, and both Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that the existing regulations simply do not comport with the realities of the modern workplace. I therefore encourage my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and support the modernization of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, today I recognize the hard work and inquisitive spirit of two young New Mexicans: Rachel Clements and Leah Crowder. These two home-schooled eighth graders from Albuquerque, NM, captured top honors at the Northwestern New Mexico Regional Science Fair for their project: ``The Effect of Bosque Fires on Saltcedar Growth.''

As we all know, science fairs are held every year, in nearly every part of the Nation. Likewise, there are many remarkable projects exhibited at these events. The Clements-Crowder project focused on a scientific issue that is of great concern to New Mexico: the tamarisk plant, also known as saltcedar. They conducted their study over the span of 2 years, and their results are noteworthy.

On the west side of the Rio Grande, Rachel and Leah enthusiastically sought to understand how cottonwood canopies affect saltcedar growth and explore the usefulness of prescribed burning as a means of eradication. Their findings showed that more saltcedars grew in burned than in unburned areas. The results of their project reinforce the necessity of moving quickly to restore the hundreds of acres of the Bosque that were recently burned.

While visiting our Nation's Capital this past month, they were kind enough to share their findings with me. While further study is necessary to verify them, their conclusions add to the knowledge necessary to deal with this threat to our water. This is the sort of information that I hope my bill, the Saltcedar Control Demonstration Act, will uncover and put to use. We must discover the best ways to eradicate this invasive species, as it will help New Mexico to conserve its most precious resource, water.

As those of us who reside in the Southwest are well aware, water is scarce. On the other hand, saltcedar is an exotic, invading water thief. The majority of the large rivers and tributaries within the State have become overrun with saltcedar which drives out desirable vegetation and reduces the ability of riparian areas and waterways to provide habitat diversity for wildlife. These invaders must be dealt with decisively and quickly.

Through their curiosity and keen sense of purpose, Rachel and Leah have provided insight into a devastating problem for New Mexico. In a sense,

they have issued an even bigger challenge to address the saltcedar problem. I am proud of these two young people, and I salute their pursuit of knowledge.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on September 11, 2003 at 2:30 p.m.

The Committee will consider S. 432, a bill to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to conduct and support research into alternative treatments for timber produced from public lands and lands withdrawn from the public domain for the National Forest System and for other purposes; S. 849, which would provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited partnership; and S. 511, which would provide permanent funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes program, and for other purposes.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150 prior to the hearing date.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878) or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Madam President, as chairman of the Committee on Energy, I am ready to proceed at any time. We have no amendments on the Republican side, so the amendments are all on the Democrat side. We stand ready to accept amendments, to debate them, to vote on them, to get rid of them. We are on one of the sections that is clearly definable. It has a limited number of amendments, the so-called electricity section. We very much would like to proceed and ask the other side if they are ready, if they could perhaps start with an amendment on the electricity side, and let us know what the remaining amendments are so we can see how long it will take us to complete the electricity title of this bill.

I say that, and at the same time I put it as a question to the minority leader.

Madam President, first, let me say I am very appreciative of the efforts that have been put forth by Senator Reid, working with the Senator from New Mexico and others, as we move through this bill.

Second, I am absolutely positive that the issues which the distinguished leader raises, in terms of the people of our country needing protection and his long litany--I am absolutely concerned that when the day is done and the bill is passed, that the Senate will find that each and every one of them are covered and they are in this bill.

We didn't work forever to leave the kinds of loopholes to hurt the American people that are described in that litany of items that the distinguished majority leader says remain undone. I understand. He would rather we prove that on the floor of the Senate. I assume that is what he is talking about, by way of debate.

But so there will be no misunderstanding, this is a good bill. The electricity section covers every one of those issues that were raised. The question is, How long should it take for us to get those issues before us, debated, and completed?

I am not here to discuss the policy of our leader. He is here; our whip is here. They can discuss that. But I know we could have accomplished a lot more than we have as of today on the Energy bill. We could have accomplished, in my humble opinion, without any question, the entire electricity portion of this bill. Every reasonable amendment anybody has could have been debated. We took 1 full day when we did absolutely nothing because one Senator said we could not change from one amendment to another when everybody knew that was what we were going to do upon our return.

We had an Indian amendment that even the Democrat manager of the bill wanted to set aside for a few changes so we could proceed, and the whole day passed because one Senator said you will stay on it and you can't do anything else.

I submit that 1 day, being the day of Monday, we would have completed one, two, or even three of the sections on the most important part of this bill, the electricity section.

Far be it for this Senator to go through each day over the last 7 or 8 and talk about what has happened by way of interruptions. But I can say, only speaking for myself, that the Energy bill is the most important remaining legislation that we have for this year. I say that not just for myself, not just for my distinguished minority friend and leader, but for the majority leader. There is no more important legislation than the Energy legislation. And Senator, I say to you, I don't think you have ever said it is not, and I do not imply that. It is filled with important issues. It is filled with proposals which will lessen our need for imported oil. It is filled with provisions which will turn our electric system

into a real system instead of a hodgepodge that accomplishes little or nothing other than each region of the country provides more and more and the country, as a whole, is shortchanged.

It provides alternatives. It provides the energy sources we have all been worried about being shortchanged--wind energy, bio energy, and the like. It has a tax section which will sensitize and provide incentives so that we will bring these kinds of energy on board.

Why do I talk about them in light of the speech which we have just heard? Because I submit that it is easy to find reasons not to get this bill done. It is easy to find justifications for saying we could not get it done. But I believe it should be very difficult to justify not proceeding.

For instance, right now we have the entire days of today and tomorrow. Neither of these days is planned for anybody's vacation-- anybody's use. I beg the other side, let's finish the electricity section today.

The answer is, we can't do bills in pieces. My response is why not? The electricity section of this bill is a section that is, indeed, all by itself. The amendments I have heard about are about two-thirds finished. Our leader is willing to remove the impediments which are technical in nature so we can proceed.

So I beg the minority, let's do the electricity provisions in this bill. Let's do it now. Let's do it tomorrow. Granted, we will have more to do, but what is wrong with doing one big piece of this bill now? What is wrong with completing the sections, if in fact the minority leader is correct in the chart that he showed? This Senator says he is not, but if he is, let's talk about them today. Let's see the amendments and let's vote on them.

It is now 11 o'clock. Even if we do not want to work very hard we can work 7 hours today and 7 hours tomorrow. I submit you can finish five or six amendments on electricity, Senator Lott, before that time has elapsed, and we will not complete everybody's desires on this bill but that is pretty important.

We can either do that or we can stand up here and say the distinguished minority leader is correct. He has just quoted a bunch of Republicans who are second-guessing the majority leader or who are being misquoted--maybe they really did second-guess him, maybe they didn't, but it looks good. The way the quotes are used, it looks as if they are criticizing him. But, nonetheless, it does not mean we can't get something done.

I submit it is as simple as this. If they will agree to do that, I will get the majority leader to agree that we go home on this recess and we return and we will take up this bill as soon as we return and finish it.

That is a pretty bona fide offer. It is pretty fair to the Democrats and pretty fair for the American people. Let me repeat it. Let's do the electricity provisions now. Let's work hard and complete them. That means we work until 7 or 8 tonight. Tomorrow night, we might not have to work that very hard.

I saw those lists. Those are not difficult amendments. We will be finished with what everybody says is the most complicated and most difficult portion of this bill. Then we can ask, Where are we? Then we can agree and say to the Senate we can go home on recess. And, Mr. Majority Leader and Mr. Minority Leader, won't you agree that upon our return, we come back to work? We come back on a Wednesday. We will have a Wednesday, a Thursday, and a Friday, and we will set those three days aside unequivocally--absolutely nothing else but the Energy bill. We can do that. Then we can stop blaming. We can do something productive, constructive--not completion of everything but pretty much.

What else would the minority like us to do? Would they like us to do something about the other pending judge? Let us ask the leader about this other pending judge, and get on with what I am just describing as a manager of a very positive approach to this bill.

For some reason, it would appear to some that we must set aside 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or up to 8 days and leave them there in order to consider the Energy bill in its entirety. I see no relationship in discussing with the American people the electricity section of this bill and a section on clean air which might be offered at another time. They are completely different. As a matter of fact, the second one doesn't even belong on this bill. It could be offered 6 months from now on an Environment and Public Works bill, to be honest. But we intend to offer it here. It need not be done on the same day in the same week in some kind of togetherness so we can tell the people the entire story. We can do the biggest piece of this without any difficulty today.

I believe I am just talking because that is what is expected. But the other side has made up its mind. I have found that sometimes when you make a proposal that is halfway reasonable, somebody listens to it. I am making one. The Senator from New Mexico sometimes offers unreasonable proposals. Most of those were when I was doing the budget. That was because people thought I didn't want to spend some money that was patently unreasonable. But what I have just offered is not unreasonable. I submit it should be done. I ask that it be done. I implore the minority to let us do it. I ask that they sit down for a moment off to the side of the Senate and agree to it.

I also ask, since the majority leader was able to put a chart up and list seven items, if I counted right--maybe it was six--that perhaps he could let us see six amendments on electricity, or five or seven. Who knows? We might be able to agree on three or four of them. We can't get that done either.

That is normally the way we do it. It is not as if we have to be hiding these issues. They are either real or they aren't. If somebody can really show the American people a piece of legislation that says the electricity bill is going to hurt the American electricity user, here is the language or not. It ought to be audible, understandable, and clear enough so we can get it out there and look at it. I have not been able to do that yet.

I haven't seen any amendments on the other side that clearly say the electricity section was put together and is supported by all method, manner, and kind of electric generating and electric distribution companies in America. Did you know that? The section is supported by all kinds. With one exception, it has everybody's support. It would seem to me that it is pretty good. Let us see what is wrong with it, and let us get those solved.

I apologize to the Senate for taking so much time. But I have a hunch, from what I just heard, that maybe I will not be speaking for a couple of weeks on the subject, in which event this might be the last you will hear from me for a while about this subject. But I beg you not to cut it off this morning, and not to leave here with some kind of a pick and with some kind of partisan ill feeling. Just as you might have them on your side, I am sure some have them on our side, partisan-wise. If mistakes were made, I am sure on our side of the aisle somebody will get up and say you have made mistakes. But please don't get up from the Judiciary Committee when I am finished--none of you--and talk about how we made mistakes with reference to the judges. Let us put that off for a while to see if we can't stay on electricity for a few minutes, if you do not mind. I beg you.

I yield the floor.

No amendments and passed, as is, and sent to conference. Could we have just a few moments and come back and discuss it with you?

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

I withhold.

Mr. President, I came here after the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, and he is my

senior. I am a youngster. But I wondered if I could speak before him and he said of course.

I ask consent that I be permitted to speak for up to 7\1/2\ minutes and that the Senator from West Virginia be the next recognized for his comments.

Mr. President, one might think, having been immersed in this Energy bill and waiting for a possible solution to the situation, that I rise to speak of that. But I do not.

Senator Byrd, I know the Senator is busy but I would like him to listen to the few comments I have because, while they are not borrowed from him, I have heard him speak about America's involvement in other countries and I want to talk about that.

It bothers my mind, as I look at Iraq, and Afghanistan, Somalia, and the possibility now of Liberia and other countries, and I want to talk about some words that we Americans and our leaders have been using ever since I was a little kid and for all the years I was here. We used to say: we don't want to build countries. We are not in the business of constructing countries. We don't want to be called upon to put a country together. We don't want to be the builders of countries-- leaving the distinct impression that we want the other countries to build themselves up.

The Senator and I would not object to that, as a thesis. That sounds like a theology of Americans. But Mr. President, I say to my good friend, the problem is that it almost implies that we will not put together the ability, the capacity to help a country build itself.

We must, as a nation, it seems to this Senator, have within our Government the capacity to help a country such as Iraq build itself up--or a country such as Afghanistan. We can't say the Defense Department is now in charge of Iraq and they know how to see that Iraq gets built up. That is not plausible.

Look what goes on every day in that country. Does all of that flow naturally to the Department of Defense for some colonel or general or the Secretary of Defense to make the decision? Of course not. There are issues of construction of a country, the building of an infrastructure, putting schools back into operation, making sure health clinics that have broken down get built. I am not suggesting that we build them in every respect but we need to have the governing capacity to have somebody in charge, seeing that it gets done.

I have said that in my own way to this administration and I am very pleased that there has been some response. I said to them on one occasion: Why don't you tell the American people what is your plan for Iraq for the next 5 years? You know, all they are seeing is the bad things. They don't know that in 6 months you are going to have a certain number of policemen trained; in 1 year, you are going to have Polish soldiers coming in; in 2 years, you are going to have all the water done.

I have said to them: In order to do that, you have to have, not the Department of Defense in charge, you have to have a reconstruction team in charge. A reconstruction team is different. In fact, it might be a layman with very big municipal authority who would be in charge. It might be a great builder who knows how to sit in an office and delegate so the things that have to be put together, the contracts that have to be let, get let; the countries that have to be called upon to do things--that it happens.

So I thought I might just share that with the Senator, since he has shown great concern about what we are going to do.

The Senator from New Mexico is totally on this President's team. I am totally his defender in terms of having taken over Iraq. I don't even spend any time worrying about those 15 words on nuclear weaponry. That is just me. I am not speaking about anybody else.

I think I ought to be listened to on some of these other issues. I know what the average folks in my hometown are thinking about. I know that they are reading in the paper about soldiers dying and the Secretary of Defense responding. I think they would feel much better if they knew there was a game plan for the reconstruction, and that America had within its Government a capacity to reconstruct what is needed and then kind of put the bricks and mortar and the building blocks together and be able to tell us, our people, and the world, what is going on month by month, 6 months by 6 months.

As an example, today I could go home to my hometown and I could speak at lunch to some people and I could pull out the blueprint for the reconstruction of Iraq. I could say to them: Folks, it may change here or there but, this is what the plan is. We have a way to do it. It is not American soldiers who are going to be over there for 5 years carrying out all the details of every little thing that has to be done. We are in a reconstruction mode to rebuild that country.

That part of our Government would be more credible when they tell us: We didn't have a water works. That is why we are still over here hurting. This fellow, Saddam Hussein, broke the water works down and there wasn't anything there for the people to drink water from. That is a lot different than saying our soldiers are running around trying to find water for the people and they got killed doing it. It is a lot different than saying we thought we had a production line to get the oil from here to there but it had decayed and we had to bring in a company to build another one, rather than reading a story that somebody shot an American soldier as we were attempting to build a pipeline for the oil and gas.

The Senator from New Mexico is totally immersed up to his head in the subject of an Energy bill for America. I pulled myself away from it to let other Senators talk about it. I thought I would come down to the floor and discuss this issue. I don't do that very often. I kind of stick to my area. But this is an important issue. We are in the business of reconstructing that country. We can say all we want--that we aren't and we don't want to--but we can't expect our soldiers, our tanks, and our men with machine guns to do that. They have to be there, of course. They are going to be there in large numbers. But we need to have something that is a reconstruction approach. The government of our country has to be wise enough, the great builders we are. We are the builders. We are the builders of the world. We surely ought to be able to put together a master plan with a master builder for the rebuilding and reconstruction.

I yield the floor. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senate.

I agree with the Senator's view. I will be a conferee on this bill. I assure the Senator that I will resist any attempt to open the conference to discussion of waste issues. I would also like to note that there are provisions in this bill that will allow the national labs to play a strong role. From our positions on the Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, let's work together to ensure their participation.

Criminal Liability

Is the Senator referring to the criminal negligence provision of the Clean Water Act and the strict criminal liability provision of the Migratory Bird Act and the Refuse Act which can be triggered by a simple accident?

But the situation the Senator is talking about refers to clear accidents involving ordinary people, correct?

My colleagues are clearly describing a legal minefield where employees involved in an accident become less likely to cooperate with accident investigations because they are being advised by counsel not to potentially incriminate themselves.

And as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, is it the Senator from Oklahoma's position that this leads to less environmental safety instead of more?

I am familiar with the provisions--it requires risk of physical harm to the public for an accident to trigger criminal prosecution.

I agree with the Senators' assessment, share their concern, and look forward to working with them to address this important issue.

Cantwell Amendment

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a piece of legislation that is of paramount importance to the State of New Mexico and many other western States. This bill will address the mounting pressures brought on by the growing demands throughout the west of a diminishing water supply.

This bill that I am introducing today authorizes the Department of Interior acting through the Bureau of Reclamation to establish a series of research and demonstration programs to help with the eradication of this non-native species on rivers in the Western United States. This bill will help develop the scientific knowledge and the experience base to build a strategy to control these invasive thieves. In addition to projects that could benefit the Pecos and the Rio Grande, the bill allows other states in the west such as Texas, Colorado, Utah, California and Arizona to develop and participate in projects as well.

Allow me to explain the importance of this bill. A water crisis has ravaged the west for four years. Drought conditions are expected to expand into the upper mid-west this year. Last year snow packs were abnormally low, causing severe drought conditions. Snow pack conditions this year were also low, but marginally better in the southwest. The rest of the west did not have promising winter snows and spring rains.

The presence of invasive species compounds the drought situation in many states. For instance, New Mexico is home to a vast amount of Salt Cedar. Salt Cedar is a water-thirsty non-native tree that continually strips massive amounts of water out of New Mexico's two predominant water supplies the Pecos and the Rio Grande rivers.

We have already had numerous catastrophic fires in our Nation's forests including the riparian woodland--the Bosque--that runs through the heart of New Mexico's most populous city. One of the reasons this fire ran its course through Albuquerque was the presence of large amounts of Salt Cedar, a plant that burns as easily as it consumes water.

Estimates show that one mature Salt Cedar tree can consume as much as 200 gallons of water per day; over the growing season that is 7 acre feet of water for each acre of Salt Cedar. In addition to the excessive water consumption, Salt Cedars increase fire, increase river channelization and flood frequency, decrease water flow, and increase water and soil salinity along the river. Every problem that drought causes is exacerbated by the presence of Salt Cedar.

I know that the seriousness of the water situation in New Mexico becomes more acute every single day. This drought has affected every New Mexican and nearly everyone in the west in some way. Wells are running dry, farmers are being forced to sell livestock, many of our cities are in various stages of conservation and many, many acres have been charred by fire.

The drought and the mounting legal requirements on both the Pecos and Rio Grande rivers are forcing us toward a severe water crisis in New Mexico. Indeed, every river in the inter-mountain west seems to be facing similar problems. Therefore, we must bring to bear every tool at our disposal for dealing with the water shortages in the west.

Solving such water problems is one of my top priorities and I assure this Congress that this bill will receive prompt attention by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Controlling water thirsty invasive species is one significant and substantial step in the right direction for the dry lands of the west.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 4, at 10 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the Department of Energy polygraph program.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 9, at 10 a.m., in 366 Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of Suedeen G. Kelly to be a Member of the Federal of Energy Regulatory Commission and Rick A. Dearborn to be Assistant Secretary of Energy, Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

For further information, please contact Judy Pensabene of Committee staff at (202) 224-1327.

committee on armed services

Mr. President, how much time does Senator Cantwell have left?

The Senator from New Mexico has a half hour less than the Senator----

I inquire if the Senator from Louisiana desires to speak?

Mr. President, I will yield and speak after Senator Landrieu.

Mr. President, we will soon have a unanimous consent request that will set up another amendment of the same class to follow this afternoon immediately after the vote on the judge.

In the meantime, I have around 20 minutes to speak. I would like very much to be as short as I can. But first, let me say to fellow Senators that I am very proud of the electricity amendment, with 13 bipartisan cosponsors, which is pending. Does anybody think we would have worked on that for days on end and not have provisions in it that take care of the problems that Senator Cantwell is talking about? Is it conceivable that I would come to the Senate floor with what we perceive to be a great American reform of an electricity system from top to bottom and leave out protection for the kind of people she is speaking of? I will answer my own question by saying that is impossible. It is impossible because we wouldn't let it happen. Second, it is impossible because it didn't happen.

Having said that, I understand full well--and I have explained privately to the very distinguished Senator, Ms. Cantwell. As I talked with her, I could just see how her very being was upset with what has happened to her constituents because of the pricing that went wild in the State of California for which she got the aftermath in her State. But it is not only her State and her constituents, it is a whole section of the country which, in a sense, got it in the neck because of California.

While I am at it--I intended to do this later in my remarks, but let me do it right now--there was a lot of talk about what happened to bring those prices to that outrageously wild system that ended up falling over on to her constituents. And the word ``manipulation'' was used and that even FERC said, in a report, manipulation caused it.

Let me suggest, the Senator from New Mexico has done everything he could to try to find out what the real experts say caused it, and none of them say it was manipulation that was at the heart of the problem of prices going outlandishly high on the west coast. As a matter of fact, whether you ask the Federal Reserve Board or whether you look at the FERC report, the root cause is found not to be--not to be-- manipulation. The meltdown was a significant supply shortage and fatally flawed design statutes.

Let me repeat, the general consensus of those who have looked at it carefully say significant supply shortfall added to a fatally flawed design market and that blew up the California market and, thus, its surrounding States.

On March 26, 2003, FERC issued its ``Final Report on Price Manipulation in Western Markets.'' Senator Cantwell believes the report proves there was manipulation. However, not everyone shares that view.

As a matter of fact, the Cambridge Energy Research Associates, CERA, is considered one of the top, if not the top, energy market analysts in the world. Daniel Yergin, the chairman of CERA, is the most respected expert in energy policy and the author of the ``Prize,'' the Pulitzer Award-winning book on the global oil market.

CERA noted that FERC ignored the natural gas and electricity supply shortages and assumed scarcity was attributed to manipulation. It was scarcity first, and then it was flawed design statutes which permitted the scarcity to go berserk.

Now, that is aside from the question.

Let's get back to the issue of the bill and whether we would bring before the body a bill that we would ask the entire Senate to support-- that I am very hopeful, by the time we are finished, will get in excess of 65, 70 votes--that does not protect the citizens from what happened on the west coast.

Now, this amendment addresses the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act in the following ways:

No. 1, it establishes an electronic information system at FERC to enhance market transparency.

No. 2, it increases criminal and civil penalties under the Federal Power Act and the Natural Gas Act.

No. 3, it enhances FERC's refund authority.

No. 4, it requires FERC to issue regulations establishing conditions under which utilities can charge market-based rates.

No. 5, it prohibits the filing of false information.

And, last, it prohibits round-trip trading.

Further, the so-called Domenici amendment--that is the master amendment we are operating under that I have asked parenthetically of myself: Would I bring it here without protecting for the future events that are being alluded to by the distinguished Senator who is worried about her State--that Domenici amendment enhances the role of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to provide oversight over electricity and natural gas.

The Senate, in my humble opinion, should reject amendments--all of them--to the electricity title of the bill that would affect FERC's and the CFTC's flexibility to react and deal with bad actors and upset further the already beleaguered utility industry's ability to respond to a changing market.

Now, I do not want to take a lot of time because, frankly, I am not sure, when we go on forever, that anybody listens. But I want to tell you that even without the so-called Domenici Modernization Act, the markets are being forced to respond, because FERC is taking action in the form of initiatives to protect electricity consumers, increase market transparency, and strengthen the regulation of electricity markets at the wholesale level.

They have proposed to identify more clearly transactions and practices that would be prohibited under electricity sellers' market- based rate tariffs and gas sellers' blanket certificate authority. These new market behavior rules would prohibit market manipulation or attempts to manipulate the market through activities such as creating and relieving artificial congestion.

They have proposed to require electricity sellers to operate and schedule generating facilities in compliance with the rules and regulations of the relevant power market.

They have proposed to require sellers to provide complete, accurate, and factual information in all communications with FERC, RTOs, ISOs, market monitors, and other similar entities. They have proposed measures to assure the accuracy of electricity and natural gas price reporting.

They have established a new Office of Market Oversight and Investigations as part of a stepped-up enforcement and audit program.

And I could go on.

Clearly, they are enforcing the law. They are taking out after those who are causing this market to react other than in a normal market way. And we will add to that authority in the bill that is before us which does not have to be amended.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has aggressively prosecuted fraud and manipulation in energy markets. They have committed 25 percent of their enforcement staff to conduct investigations into misconduct in energy markets.

CFTC's existing authority empowers it to prosecute fraud and manipulation. Under the authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they have filed civil action against Enron and a former Enron vice president for manipulation of prices in natural gas markets. They have filed civil action against Enron for operating an illegal futures exchange. They have filed civil action against El Paso Merchant for false reporting and have a $20 million settlement. And they have filed civil action against Dynegy Marketing for false reporting and have a $5 million settlement. They have filed civil action against Encana Trading for false reporting and Williams Trading for false reporting, both with a $20 million settlement.

Criminal actions have been filed, and I have a complete list of those. Enron's former head of CA trading pled guilty to conspiracy.

We don't need further amendments beyond the Domenici amendment that is pending to be sure the constituents of the distinguished Senator from the State of Washington are protected. They are protected. All we do by adding more is making the market more difficult. We would accomplish little but perhaps to say to ourselves we have done much.

The Natural Gas Supply Association, the Interstate Natural Gas Association, and the American Gas Association have all endorsed the market manipulation provisions in this amendment we call the Domenici amendment. I believe it is right as it is. It need not be changed.

Mr. President, let me just generally talk about where we want to go. Soon we will have the unanimous consent request in writing.

I say to the Senator, maybe we can just recite it here since you and I know it.

Surely.

People might want to speak to which amendment? To the amendment you were referring to?

Could we agree where we are going? There is an amendment up shortly, is there not?

Mr. President, I have not propounded a unanimous consent request. I just wanted to know how much time is left to Senator Cantwell.

Yes.

Yes, there is objection.

Mr. President, I don't want to object to the Senator from California speaking. I just want to remind the Senator and the Senate, this amendment has been on the floor 3 hours--not 3 minutes, not 30 minutes, 3 hours. We are supposed to vote, generally, when 3 hours is up. Three hours will be up in a few minutes. I would like to proceed and vote. I have a few minutes. I don't know that I need it. But I really don't think I am being unfair in suggesting to the Senator that perhaps, so we can vote on an amendment that has been pending for 3 hours, if you could take half the time you requested so we can proceed to vote, I would have no objection.

I have not.

I don't think it is fair for the Senator--I am going to give her time, but I don't think it is fair for her to give a speech this way. She knows she is going to get time, and she can just be patient like every other Senator, if you don't mind.

I thank you.

Might I say to the Senate, the Senator from New Mexico has responded to an amendment. Never once did I say there was no market manipulation. I don't intend that every time any of us gives a speech, that somebody come to the floor when there are time agreements and decide they would like to give a speech on something they heard.

I said there are studies that say market manipulation was not the principal reason for what happened. If the Senator would like to speak, I would ask her if she would speak for a little less time so we can proceed, since the time is up. I can object, and we will vote. And then you can speak after the vote.

I am pleased to.

I wanted to ask the Senator if he wanted to object at this point. He is not going to object.

How much time did the Senator ask for?

I wonder if you would take 10 minutes.

All right, 10 minutes, so long as we understand. I ask unanimous consent that she have 10 minutes, after which time we will finish the time allowed and then we will vote on the pending amendment.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator for getting her remarks down to 10 minutes. How much time does Senator Cantwell have?

Does she want to deliver her remarks?

I yield the floor.

I will wait for a while.

Mr. President, the bill before us does away with the Enron loophole, there is no question about it. If I came from California or Washington, I would come to the floor of the Senate and offer an amendment that was very precise and specific and talked about the problems of the people of the west coast. That is what the Senator is doing. But merely talking about them does not mean that the bill before us does not protect her people. The truth is, it does.

The Domenici amendment protects consumers in the States of Washington, California, and others who were victimized by the Enron scandal, and many others, and market regulations in California that were doomed from the outset to cause the failures that occurred. To regulate at one level and deregulate at the other level is clearly to invite exactly what happened, and then the spillover falls onto the adjoining States, including that of the distinguished Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell.

I commend the Senator from Washington for her genuine and abiding concern for her people. I commend the Senator from California for her studious and lengthy involvement in attempting to ascertain and articulate the problems. But neither of those qualities require serious amendment to this bill. They require just what is happening: that the Senators representing those problems speak to the issues. And speak they have--3 hours and 15 or 20 or 30 minutes on this subject--and, I assume, before we are finished on collateral issues even more.

I could take out my preparatory books, where I spent hours talking to everyone of every ilk in every type of industrial input and involvement as we put this bill together, and read the language showing that what happened before will not happen again.

I could tell my colleagues what has happened is being broken up by those in the criminal justice structure of our Government, and those involved with the civil part are filing their lawsuits. Neither of the States involved are having the same problem because there are protections being carried out, and there will be more when this bill is adopted, without adding any more burdens, additions, or specificity to the bill.

It is with great regret that I suggest we keep--since it was worked out so delicately with so many different units, institutions, and groups--that we preserve the delicacy of this bill. The Senator who proposed this knows that the cooperatives that are very worried have spoken to the fact that they do not need any more protection. They have told her that. They have told her office that. And there are more associations beyond them that say their fears are alleviated by this bill.

I yield the floor, and we will proceed.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I object.

Does the Senator want to offer a second-degree amendment to the electricity amendment?

I did not know that. I did not understand that.

Well, they have all been currently set aside for amendments to the electricity amendment, Madam President. That is why I wondered, what is the need for the unanimous consent request?

I have no objection to the request.

Madam President, if somebody is discussing an amendment, and there is business on the floor of the Senate, we will not recess; we will work.

Madam President, before I start, I ask the distinguished sponsor of the amendment how much additional time does he think he needs on his amendment. I am not pressing the Senator.

Since it looks as if we will not be very long, does the Senator from New Mexico know if there is another amendment ready on his side since we are close to completing the debate on this amendment?

I thank the Senator very much.

Madam President, I say to the author of the legislation, I very much appreciate the fact that during these difficult times when we are trying very hard to get so much done in a short period of time the Senator came to the floor, put an amendment down, and, in his typical manner, got to the point, and in short order is going to let the Senate vote.

Frankly, what he is asking us to do is exactly the wrong thing for the situation that exists today in the energy markets. There is an article that was quoted from which is on all our desks:

Energy Monoliths Could Return.

It was quoted from, excepting on the second page there is an absolutely succinct paragraph that this Senator believes is totally, unequivocally correct. I quote three-quarters of the way down the paragraph starting with the word ``repeal'':

Repeal could restore confidence in energy companies shunned

by shareholders after the Enron scandal and encourage badly

needed expansion of power transmission networks.

From the financial market standpoint, repeal--

And let me add ``of PUHCA,'' repeal of PUHCA--

would be the single most important part of the energy bill.

It certainly is what investors are looking for.

The problem with the amendment is that it probably will take the intent in that paragraph, the indication of what most probably will happen when PUHCA is repealed, and it will probably destroy it, wilt it, make it very vulnerable, and we will not get the result. The result is the need for huge injections of capital into the energy companies because of what has happened to them in the past 18 months.

That is why it is good news that PUHCA is being repealed. That is why it is bad news when an amendment comes along and says: This is just a little 'ole amendment to make sure the electric companies keep their money where it ought to be, that they ought not invest it anyplace else, and that their boards of directors be governed by this statute, the kinds of issues that tie up the potential of a company that is involved in the utility business.

We have already given FERC in this carefully balanced bill the enforcement power to make sure that the companies are properly invested, to make sure they are taking care of their business and of the stockholders' money and of the electrical business.

We have actually said that is a power FERC has. This title already includes enhanced books and records authority for both State and Federal regulators to ensure that ratemaking bodies have all the information necessary they need for retail ratemaking, to ensure there is no cross-subsidization or improper commingling of utility and affiliate assets. That is what the authors of the amendment are worried about, that if PUHCA is not there--and remember, everybody has said so far, including my friend Senator Bingaman, we ought to get rid of PUHCA. It is an unfair holding down of these companies by an old law. Everyone wants to get rid of it except these two Senators want to say now if we do, let's go back and put some more handcuffs on these companies because we are scared, we are frightened, that they will do wrong.

We are saying, if that is done, the very pluses, the positives, that come from the repeal are going to be negated because what is being done is not needed, and investment is going to be scared off.

The Domenici underlying bill says that when we get rid of PUHCA we better put in something, although this job is principally the job of States. When Senator Bingaman read about the two cases, in both cases State commissions were involved in cleaning up the matter, but nonetheless, we have put in here the Federal Government, FERC, is given this authority in this particular area, because of PUHCA going away, to make sure there is no improper commingling of utility and affiliate assets.

There is more. In fact, the underlying amendment also says, with reference to merger, acquisitions and dispositions, leasing, or other transactions:

Will not impair the ability of the Commission or the

ability of the State commission having jurisdiction . . . to

protect the interests of consumers or the public.

And:

Will not impair the financial integrity of any public

utility that is a party to the transaction or an associate

company of any party to the transaction.

So it even says when PUHCA is gone, we have all of these entities that will be worried about mergers and the like, but we put new language in that I just read, which says, nonetheless, if we are talking about merger, acquisition, or disposition, there are these additional powers.

Frankly, I understand that an amendment which is, in fact, a bill-- that is the Domenici amendment--it is that big. I understand Senators and their staff could read it and they could say, well, yes, we get rid of PUHCA, and then somebody back home might tell them if you are getting rid of PUHCA you better be sure you do so and so, and this amendment could be given birth.

If one looks at this carefully, they will find it did not come to the floor without the staff which worked on it helping the Senator make sure we know, when we get rid of PUHCA, we have to do something to be sure we have taken care of some problem children that might arise along the way.

I want to repeat, this is not a little proposition. If it was, I would accept it because these are very good Senators. But I know if I took it, I would be sending the wrong signal to all of those companies across this land that have reviewed this bill very closely, some small, some large, some of them municipal, some of them co-ops. They have looked at it carefully and they know we are through with PUHCA. I do

not want them to say, well, we got rid of one and they turn right around and make it difficult for us to do what we ought to do, what we can do, what we should do, to make sure we got all the assets invested in our companies in these faltering days in terms of resources.

So I say to the two Senators, I wish that were not the case so I could thank them and accept it, but I honestly do not believe those who analyzed it did a careful job. No aspersions.

A better way might be that we looked at it carefully, we watched out, and we were certain we protected the public and the consumers, those who will take electricity, and indeed the stockholders, so the kinds of things they are worried about will not happen.

I do not know what it means, but the horror cases they are speaking of occurred while PUHCA existed. That is interesting, just as an observation.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I was informed a while ago by my good friend, the whip, Senator Reid, that as soon as we finish this amendment--and I think we are finished; I am not quite sure whether the proponents have finished--Senator Byrd wanted to speak. I ask Senator Byrd, since he is here, if that is the case. And then I ask if I could speak following Senator Byrd, if he has no objection. I ask that after the distinguished Senator Byrd completes his remarks, the Senator from New Mexico be recognized.

Madam President, if we could reduce the debate time before each amendment. We don't need 10 minutes; 5 minutes would do.

Let's prepare the unanimous consent request on all three, with 5 minutes each, 10 minutes equally divided.

Madam President, I say thank you very much, Senator Byrd. I greatly appreciate your remarks. It is always my pleasure to be serving with you.

Thank you.

Madam President, the Senator has no right to decide who speaks. They have to seek recognition.

The Senator cannot dole out the time. He has no right to dole the time out to other Senators, Madam President.

Madam President----

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, I wish to make a point in case there are people observing the Senate. Senator Nelson from Florida indicated he had been waiting a long time--maybe all day--to be heard. There are a lot of Senators all day long who would like to come to the floor and be heard. The Senate is not the place where we just come down to the floor and automatically, if we come here, we ought to be heard. We have business, and we have rules. I am glad the Senator found time and we allowed 5 minutes and we allowed Senator Byrd 30 minutes, but we are engaged in a bill we are trying to pass.

I had a lengthy discussion with my friend from Nevada, and I have no doubt he wants to get this bill finished. I thank him for his willingness to move along. We will have another amendment ready pretty soon.

My objection to the Bingaman amendment is very simple. He alludes to last year and what happened with amendments such as his last year. There was no alternative last year. There is an alternative this year. It is the underlying electricity bill, which clearly protects the citizens, the users, and all of those concerns about mergers.

The merger review in our section is supported by groups such as the National Rural Co-ops, the rural power people, and many others. If, in fact, we did not have protection in this area with reference to gobbling by merger, obviously they would not be for this underlying bill. So I oppose this amendment because we do not have to expand FERC's merger authority. They have merger authority.

Under current law, electric merger departments are heavily regulated. FERC, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission must review proposed mergers for their impact on competition. States also review proposed mergers. Expanding FERC's authority to cover the acquisition of generation facilities is unnecessary. We have plenty of merger authority if that is what we are worried about. We are getting rid of undue regulation. There is no need to impose more.

Further, changing FERC's review standards will impede efficient transactions, and we do not need that today, either.

So while I have great respect and admiration for my friend, I believe the electricity bill that is pending before us, which has been carefully put together, has broad support all based on the fact that it fits all the pieces together properly. It should be left alone. We do not have to add more merger review layers.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, one of the most difficult negotiations in this bill was getting the language that prohibited the finalization of SMDs until July 1, 2005. The occupant of the chair knows that. That is what we have been talking about. Other Senators wanted a longer time. Some wanted a shorter time. Well, Senator Bingaman changes the language surrounding that July 2005 agreement. Frankly, I would be letting down all of those different groups that worked together to negotiate the language that said the finalization of SMDs will be delayed until July 1, 2005; by changing the words around it, all kinds of groups will be saying we have let them down; we changed what we agreed to.

In other words, I regret to say that the exact words surrounding this 2005 letter expansion are binding. Senator Bingaman wants to clarify it one way. There will be a whole group of people who worked on it saying, well, I did not want it clarified that way. I wanted it clarified another way.

The point is, it will work like it is. It might work like he wants it to work but the problem is we agreed to these words. Believe me, I am not agreeing to words just for words. They will work. It is just that the distinguished Senator would like to be more precise, more specific, his way. In doing that, he puts this Senator, who has worked this out with all of these other people, in a bind that if I say, yes, let's change it, then we are going to have telephone calls besieging Senators all over saying vote no; the senior Senator from New Mexico is not doing what he told us he would do.

Now, I regret that but that is just the result of the way we do things. I am very proud of the words, the date, and the negotiation. I do not lose a lot of Senators on that language and that date. Maybe six or eight wanted more time but we got a pretty good deal for almost everybody. So I just cannot take the risk. I am sorry.

With that, I do not need any more time. I yield back any time I have remaining.

Vote on Amendment No. 1413

I move to table the first Bingaman amendment, which is the pending subject matter, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. Is there any time to speak on this amendment?

I move to table the Feingold amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I wonder if the minority whip will advise me--we are on the electricity title--are we ready to vote on passage of the electricity title or do you have additional amendments?

Does Senator Kennedy have an amendment?

Madam President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts, I will speak to the majority leader, as soon as an amendment is laid down, with reference to the issue Senator Kennedy just raised. I understand if we proceed on an amendment, we will have an hour or so, at which time I will talk with the majority leader and tell him of your desire and others to speak, and see what his wishes are in that regard.

Without losing my right to the floor.

I will mention the Senator's name.

Yes.

Madam President, I cannot do anything more than that, and I think the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts accepts my statement as an honest statement.

I will leave the floor. I will find the leader, and I will tell him what is going to happen. I will seek his advice and give him my advice. I very much appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts letting me know. We have a number of amendments left. We have important legislation before us. It is absolutely impossible to do the people's business if, in fact, during the next 12 hours we have 6 or 8 hours taken up by speeches with reference to a judge. We will get it done, but we will be here Sunday, which is all right with this Senator. I do not think I want to let that happen under my watch as manager, but I guarantee my colleagues, for those who insist they are going to speak, I can assure them we are going to be here.

Sooner or later the speeches will run out, and we will be here, and we will take up the pending amendments on this bill. I have been told that by the leader unequivocally. I assume that is true if only 60 Senators stick around. So long as we do not lose a quorum, I presume we are going to be here on Friday, on Saturday, and on Monday to finish this bill. Senators have their rights, but we have an obligation to do this work.

I say to the distinguished whip, if he will call up the next amendment, I will leave the floor and find out what the leader will do about this, and perhaps we can come up with some accommodation with reference to this issue. I thank Senator Kennedy for his willingness to let me do that.

Will the Senator yield?

How long does the Senator intend to speak?

Does the Senator from New Mexico have the floor or the Senator from Massachusetts?

Will the Senator yield? I will get right back to him.

Madam President, let me repeat----

I ask for a couple of minutes, and it will not take any longer.

I thank the Senator. First, I say judges are important, and speaking on behalf of or against judges is very important. I say that not only to the Senators but to our majority leader. It is also very important that we pass an Energy bill. We have been waiting for weeks and weeks. This committee was asked to put a bill together. The Senator from New Mexico wants to get the Energy bill finished. Clearly, I find nothing in the rules that says the Senator from Massachusetts is not entitled to make his speech of 30 minutes or up to an hour. I do believe it is important, nonetheless, that somewhere along the line there be some accommodation and that we proceed to get the Energy bill finished. I understand there are four or five amendments. I wish I could see them sooner or later so I will know what they are about but nobody owes me that, either. We will take it as it comes.

I will ask the distinguished majority leader to be accommodating so we can get this bill finished, but I am doing that with great trepidation, not as to Senator Kennedy but as to whether there is a willingness to pursue this bill with vigor if that accommodation is made. I am not sure about that based on some things that have been happening but I hope it is. It is with that in mind that I will talk to the leader, hoping it does mean that if accommodation is made, we will proceed with dispatch on the Energy bill.

I thank the Senator for yielding to me.

Madam President, is the Senator from New Mexico recognized?

Madam President, I conferred with the majority leader, and he is thinking about the situation we are in. I would like to chat for a little bit as one who greatly appreciates the Senate, the committees, and the jobs we all have and the job I have.

While the majority leader is thinking about matters and deciding what to do, I want to talk a little bit about the situation.

First of all, let me say there is no question that the United States of America needs an Energy bill and needs an Energy bill sooner rather than later. We have already passed the time to have an Energy bill. As far as I am concerned, whatever this interference of a judge and a judge's vote and Senators on the other side of the aisle wanting to speak, the way I look at it, I would let them all do it. In fact, I would say to the Democratic Members of that committee, why don't you all speak? I would set up the vote on the judge at the earliest possible time under the rules, and let them speak if we have to stay here all night. Let them all speak. Then we will have the judge out of the way sooner than later. Then we would just say to everybody, fine. One day we were supposed to be debating the Energy bill and we debated the judge, so we will stay here an extra day. I would just say, let's start tomorrow, and after you talk for the next 9 hours, instead of working on the Energy bill, let us go to work and let us do the Energy bill. That might mean instead of Friday we would be here Saturday. We would just substitute one day called Saturday for a day called Wednesday. Wednesday was the day we ought to be working on the Energy bill, but there has been a decision to speak to a very important subject which the other side of the aisle has thought to be very important, and that is their privilege. They think it is important to talk about a judge. I think it is important that we in fact get an Energy bill. I think there is only one way to do both of them. That is to let the Democrats talk as long as they would like. If they want to talk now, or want to talk for the rest of the night, or want to talk right up until the time we are supposed to vote, then sooner or later that vote will be over. That will be one of the jobs we have in front of us.

Then I would turn to the next job we have, and that is the Energy bill. If we don't get to that until tomorrow morning, we will then be on the Energy bill. Then we will decide how much time we want to take on the Energy bill. Then the public will know where we are.

Everything will have been done: Democrats will have gotten to talk all they wanted on a judge and the Republican leader will have brought up the judge and the Senate having voted on the judge--whatever happens, a cloture vote, approval, nonapproval, but the vote will be over, and we will be back on the Energy bill. Then we will have nothing else before us.

Straightforward, looking out to the public of America, looking across the aisle to our friends and saying: You had it your way. Now, are we ready? Are we ready to go and finish the Energy bill the American way? You can't have both of them. You can have one or the other. You can have one at a time but you can't have both at the same time.

So I think it is pretty easy. I don't think it is the only way, though. I think the majority and minority leaders can, in fact, reach an agreement. That is not the business of the Senator from New Mexico but I believe they could reach an agreement.

Let me repeat, if nobody wants to agree, and the Democrats want to talk--and they have told us absolutely they have the right to talk, not about the Energy bill, about a judge. And I am not being critical. There is a judge nominee who they claim they want to talk about. I think they ought to talk about it. I think they ought to talk right up until the time we vote. But sooner or later we will vote on that judge and then we ought to come back to the Energy bill. Then we can tell the public, clear and simple, there is no judge in the way, there is nothing in the way. Here we are, full speed ahead.

We have as many days as we need. We have Friday--well, that would still only be Thursday. We have the rest of Thursday. We have Friday. We have Saturday. Then certainly some people would not want to work on Sunday but then we could come back Monday. If the Democrats think we need 4 more days, we could have 4 more days.

I, frankly, believe, without any doubt, you can finish this Energy bill in a day and a half, and people can have all the time they want on important matters--maximum, 2 but you can finish it in 1\1/2\ to 2 days.

So from this Senator's standpoint--I repeat, I do not speak for anyone but myself as the chairman of the Energy Committee and someone who has worked pretty hard to get a bill I think is pretty good but that I would like to take to conference someday with the House and get an Energy bill for the country. This bill does not please everybody but it is pretty good.

I have been pondering it, but I think probably the best thing to do is to make arrangements to do them both, to do the judge and to do the bill. If that is what the other side wants, to take the time that I think belongs to the Energy bill so they can speak, I would say, let them do it. But that time will end. When that time ends, we go to the Energy bill and then there will not be any excuses--that will be it.

Whatever are the amendments--my friend, the whip, has told me there are three or four more on the electricity

section--let's have them. We can do them whenever that time comes that I have just described, one after another, just like we have done. None have passed yet. That is not to say some will not in the future.

Then we will go to the other ones, three of which are important to people but that do not even belong on this bill. And they are important. They are going to take a lot of time. They literally do not belong on this bill.

So I have spent a lot of time so far. I am willing to spend a lot more. I don't think it needs 3 more days of the time of the Senator from New Mexico. I think it needs 2 days. But I can't do that so long as the other side wants to talk about a judge. I can't do both. The public ought to know that. It just can't be done.

Having said that, let me repeat, let's do both. But let's have an understanding that when we are finished with the judge--and the Democrats will have had all the time they needed to talk about the judge; and that is fine; we have the ranking member here; he might want to talk about him--then we will go to the Energy bill, and we will stay here Friday and Saturday and Sunday and Monday and finish the Energy bill.

I yield the floor.

Object to what?

Reserving the right to object, I want to say to everyone who is listening, in case you are confused, we are not on the Energy bill.

I appreciate that my colleague and fellow New Mexican worked with me to help alleviate the current situation with the silvery minnow. I concur with his understanding of the language which is designed to narrowly address the silvery minnow situation in the Rio Grande. It is intended to prohibit the use of San Juan-Chama water in the Rio Grande for endangered species purposes and to implement the March 17, 2003 Biological Opinion. I also concur with his view of the benefits of Section 205 in general, and will strongly advocate for its retention in conference, as well as inclusion of this interpretive language in the conference report.