Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President----

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, how much time do I have?

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

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

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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?

Mr. DOMENICI. Does Senator Kennedy have an amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. 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?

Mr. DOMENICI. 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that it probably will take the intent in that paragraph, the indication of what most probably will happen when PUHCA is repealed, and it will probably destroy it, wilt it, make it very vulnerable, and we will not get the result.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.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

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

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

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, is the Senator from New Mexico recognized?

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting to consider S. 930, S. 1279, GSA resolutions to authorize the FY 2004 Capital and Investment Leasing Program, H.R. 274, S. 269, S. 551, the Recycled Oil Bill (to be introduced), S. 793, H.R. 1018, H.R. 281, S. 1210, S. 1425, and the POPS implementing bill, to be introduced. The hearing will be held in SD 406 (Hearing Room).

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 9 a.m., to hold a nominations hearing.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at a time and location to be determined to hold a business meeting to consider the nominations of Joe D. Whitley to be General Counsel, Department of Homeland Security; Penrose C. Albright to be Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for Plans, Programs, and Budget, Department of Homeland Security, and Joel D. Kaplan to be Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, July 30, 2003. The following agenda will be considered: Presidential nominations: Howard Radzely, of Maryland, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor; and Michael Young, of Pennsylvania, to be a member of the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. Any additional nominees cleared for action.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a business meeting on pending business, to be followed immediately by an oversight hearing on potential settlement mechanisms of the Cobell v. Norton lawsuit. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet in the afternoon on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2 p.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on S. 578, The Tribal Government Amendments to the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``Judicial Nominations'' on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 10 a.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226. Witness List: Panel I: Senators. Panel II: Henry W. Saad to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit. Panel III: Larry Alan Burns to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California; Glen E. Conrad to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia; Henry F. Floyd to be United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina; Kim R. Gibson to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Michael W. Mosman to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon; and Dana Makoto Sabraw to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of California.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m. in the Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226 on ``An Examination of S. 1194, The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act of 2003.'' Witness List: Panel I: Mr. Ron Honberg, Esq., National Alliance for Mental Illness, Arlington, VA; The Honorable Eve Stratton, Justice Ohio Supreme Court, Columbus, OH; Mr. Reggie Wilkinson, Director of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections, Columbus, OH; Sheriff Donald Eslinger, Seminole County Sheriff's Department, Sanford, FL; and The Honorable John Campbell, Vermont State Senate, Quechee, VT.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 9 a.m., for a hearing entitled ``SARS: Best Practices for Identifying And Caring for New Cases.''

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space be authorized to meet on Wednesday, July 30, 2003, at 2:30 p.m., on Space Exploration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.