Robert Bennett

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. In that case, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from North Dakota be recognized for 7 minutes and, further, that he be followed by the Senator from California.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield half an hour to the Senator from Idaho. Just a moment, Mr. President. I was unaware that the Senator from Mississippi was on the floor. He was hiding behind me. So I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote in relation to the Feinstein amendment No. 2083 occur at 2:30 today; provided that no second-degree amendments be in order to the amendment prior to the vote, with the time until then equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that following that vote, the Senate proceed to a vote on passage of H.R. 2622, the Fair Credit Reporting bill. I also ask as in executive session that the Senate then proceed to executive session and an immediate vote on the confirmation of calendar No. 402, Roger Titus to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Maryland; provided further, that following that vote the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes equally divided for debate prior to each of the votes following the first vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I am happy to have the second two votes be 10-minute votes.

Mr. BENNETT. I understand the Senator from California had the desire to offer her amendment, and I encouraged her to come to the floor to do so. Now she has come. I ask the Senator from North Dakota how long he might want to take because I want to accommodate the Senator from California. I say that as if I control the time, which I clearly do not, but the Senator from Nevada has suggested the Senator from California be allowed to offer her amendment and I want to be as accommodating as I can be to all Senators.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, this amendment would expand the boundaries of the Arrostook Empowerment Zone in the State of Maine and the Griggs-Steele Empowerment Zone in the State of North Dakota to encompass the remaining area of the respective counties not currently included in the empowerment zone designation. I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I ask the Senator if he would withhold for just a moment. We are trying to pull a few things together. But I am more than happy to have the time appropriately spent other than in a quorum call. If the Senator will withhold for just a few moments, I will be in a position to respond.

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, the amendment is still pending. It is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset. Therefore, I believe we should vote the amendment down. We have already said this was the last vote today, but if the Senator wants a vote, I suppose there could be one. This is now $6.3 billion for which there is no offset with the emergency designation stricken.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent then that we vote on the Dayton amendment at 5:15.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am not familiar with this issue, but I have asked members of the Energy Committee about it, and they have indicated opposition to the Cantwell amendment. There are some members of that committee who are on their way here. In the meantime, I will share with my colleagues the contents of a memorandum with respect to the Cantwell amendment that has been provided to Senator Domenici. In this memorandum, the following objections are raised. First: FERC has and is using its authority to stop fraud and manipulation. . . . FERC has demonstrated that it will use the full extent of its authority to assure honest, fair wholesale electricity markets. FERC has taken a number of initiatives which are listed in the memo and which I will share with Members if the appropriate members of the Energy Committee do not arrive. The second objection to the Cantwell amendment is that it is too vague. It is suggested that: It is written in such general terms that it will lead to greater uncertainty. A general ban on manipulation will not help companies determine what conduct amounts to manipulation and what conduct is appropriate behavior in a competitive market. . . . [A] blanket prohibition on ``manipulation,'' without defining the elements of what constitutes manipulation . . . could have a chilling effect on the market without meaningfully adding to the protections already available to electricity customers under existing law. The third objection is that: The Cantwell Amendment could lead to duplication and confusion among the agencies. The enabling statutes of the Commodity and Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) already contain broad prohibitions against conduct that is intended to manipulate markets. Adding such another broad general prohibition to the Federal Power Act would only lead to unnecessary duplication and potential conflict between various enforcement agencies. In addition, the Federal Power Act already prohibits wholesale electricity prices that are not ``just and reasonable.'' Therefore, FERC has the authority to investigate electricity prices and to require refunds if prices are not ``just or reasonable'' or modify contracts if it is in the public interest to do so. The House and Senate Energy bills both would enhance FERC's existing refund authority and increase civil and criminal penalties for violations of the Federal Power Act. The memo makes the point that this issue has been addressed in the Energy bill, and that is the place for it to be done. The next objection raised is: The number of Federal investigations and prosecutions by a broad array of agencies demonstrates there is no need for the Cantwell Amendment. Federal agencies have been and continue to be active in investigating criminal offenses in the energy industry. These agencies as listed in the memorandum include the President's Corporate Fraud Task Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the United States Postal Service, and numerous U.S. Attorney's offices across the country. Through ``cooperative enforcement,'' these agencies have focused on investigations of possible round trip trading, false reporting and fraud and manipulation by energy companies and their affiliates, employees and agents. There have been a number of arrests, settlements and continued investigations and prosecutions reported based on these agencies' efforts. And the argument is made that: The Cantwell Amendment will not improve or change these actions. Then reference is made to: The Domenici Electricity Amendment effectively deals with market manipulation. This is the amendment that is part of the Energy bill that is now in conference. The memo outlines all the reasons why that particular amendment is sufficient. As I say, I am waiting for a member of the Energy Committee to come make these arguments with perhaps a little more background than I have. I would like to move to a vote on this amendment, so I ask, before I would suggest the absence of a quorum, if the Senator from Washington would agree to a vote, let us say, at 4:20. Would that be a sufficient period of time for the Senator?

Mr. BENNETT. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I would be happy to vote on the Cantwell amendment immediately and then go on to other business connected to the bill.

Mr. BENNETT. Under those circumstances, Madam President, I raise the point of order that this is in violation of the Budget Act since there is no emergency designation and urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask for a voice vote.

Mr. BENNETT. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Craig.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Levin and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken, that amendment No. 2072, which is the text of Calendar No. 216, S. 1427, the Senate committee-reported bill, be inserted in lieu thereof, that the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendments, and that no points of order be waived by reason of this agreement.

Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I am pleased to present the Agriculture appropriations subcommittee report to the full Senate and to recommend passage of this bill. I am very grateful to the ranking member, Senator Kohl, and his professional staff. It has been one of the most satisfying experiences of my service in the Senate to see how Senator Kohl's staff and our staff have been integrated and have performed as truly professional staffs, regardless of any partisan affiliation. I think one of the reasons the bill moved as smoothly as it did through subcommittee and full committee is that the staffs have worked together in such a professional way. I am grateful to Senator Kohl for his wisdom in the people he has chosen, and I am grateful to them for the professional way in which they have handled it. The bill is at the 302(b) discretionary allocation level of $17.005 billion. That is $873 million less than the fiscal 2003 level, which was $17.878 billion. It is always difficult to bring an appropriations bill to the floor that has an allocation lower than the previous year and, in this case, it is almost $1 billion lower. That has made the challenge of putting the bill together extremely difficult and, once again, underscores the accomplishments of the professional staff as they have dealt with this challenge. To run through the various titles of the bill and help people understand what we are talking about, I will give you the following numbers. On title I, dealing with agricultural programs, we have a total of $26.776 billion, of which $20.658 billion is mandatory. This is $1.318 million more than fiscal year 2003. On food safety, it is $783.761 million, which is an increase of $28.9 million over fiscal 2003. The Agricultural Research Service is at $1.092 billion. The Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service is at $1.118 billion. The Animal and Plant Inspection Service, APHIS, is at $711 million. That takes care of title I. Title II, conservation programs, come in at a total of $973 million, which is $48 million less than fiscal 2003. Conservation operations are at $826.635 million. Title III, rural economic and community development programs, the total appropriated funds will be $2.588 billion, which will support a loan level of $4.353 billion. Single-family housing is at the $4.084 billion level. The Rural Community Advancement Program is at $769.479 million. Distance learning, telemedicine, and broadband is at $685.963 million. Title IV, domestic food programs, there is a total of $44.088 billion, of which $39.164 billion is mandatory. This is $2.197 billion more than fiscal 2003. Food stamps will be funded at $27.745 billion. WIC, Women, Infants, and Children, will be funded at $4.639 billion. Title V, foreign assistance and related programs, there is a total of $1.486 billion, which is $349 million less than fiscal year 2003, which included supplemental funding of $369 million. Title I, development food assistance, is $131.67 million. Title II, emergency food assistance, is $1.192 billion. McGovern-Dole international food for education and child nutrition, which is a new discretionary account, is funded at $25 million. On the overall bill, title VI, related agencies and the Food and Drug Administration, this is an increase. It is $1.482 billion, $16 million more than in fiscal 2003. The Food and Drug Administration gets $1.39 billion in direct appropriations, plus an additional $302 million in user fees. The committee provides $10 million toward the Government's share of the medical device review user fee program. Finally, title VII, general provisions, the committee includes limitations on several farm bill mandatory programs. We do not freeze these programs at a level below fiscal 2003, and we do no harm to existing programs by these limitations. The committee did not include a limitation on the mandatory funding level for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, EQIP. Now, in the bill, there are necessary pay costs for employees covered: $131.208 million. I will make a personal and parochial observation with respect to this bill. Utah is in its fifth year of the worst drought in memory, which is a situation shared by many Western colleagues. We have not provided emergency funding for the drought, but we have made substantial investments in farm programs and conservation efforts that we think will help producers deal with these weather-related disasters. This is an appropriations bill, not an authorizing bill. I know there is a strong temptation to use appropriations bills as a vehicle to catch up on authorization situations. Senator Kohl and I have agreed that we will oppose any authorizing amendment regardless of how salutary it may be, unless it has been cleared by both the chairman and the ranking member of the appropriate authorizing committee. I am grateful to Senator Kohl for his willingness and leadership on this particular issue. We have done our best to accommodate Member requests in this bill. This is not always possible. The fact that we are almost $1 billion less than fiscal 2003 makes it difficult. We have done our best to be as fair as we can and as complete as we can. If there are any funding amendments, therefore, offered on the floor, they must be offset. It is the desire of the leadership, Senator Frist and Senator Daschle, to finish this bill today. I think that can be done. But if it is to be done, we are going to have to have full cooperation of all of the Senators. We know of some of the amendments that have been proposed. We have done our best to deal with those amendments at the staff level and in the committee by having conversations and occasionally colloquies. But we understand there are some amendments that will be proposed, will be debated, and will be voted on. I ask for the cooperation of all of my colleagues and that, first, they come to the floor in a timely fashion to offer their amendments; secondly, that they would understand we need to move through these amendments as quickly as possible in order to meet the leadership's request that we finish the bill tonight. I am hoping we can finish it in good time tonight. We will stay, as I understand it from Leader Frist, as long as we have to stay to get the bill done. While the time seems to be hanging heavily on people's hands right now, I hope they will come to the floor and offer their amendments now, rather than rushing in at 10:30 tonight and saying: I have an amendment, and I need to have it brought up. I will do my best to allow full and fair debate on each amendment, but I am prepared to offer a tabling motion if it appears to me all of the arguments have been made. I believe we know which are the more controversial amendments. I have talked with people who stand on both sides of those amendments and suggested to them the arguments have been made; there is really nothing new to be said about it. While we did get the information on the record, we really need to come to a conclusion and move on these particular amendments. I don't think there is any amendment on which a Senator is undecided. I think the controversial amendments have been sufficiently discussed prior to coming to the floor so that everyone pretty much knows where he or she stands. I will use the tabling motion judiciously. I will not attempt to cut anybody off or violate his or her privileges, but I will do what I can to keep the bill moving in a timely fashion. Amendment No. 2073

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. Parliamentary inquiry: What is the pending business?

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

Mr. BENNETT

Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.