Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes.

Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I can guarantee Senators that the Senator from New Mexico has worked for the last 7 months on this bill. The electricity amendment is a compromise supported by a broad array of stakeholders, much broader than I ever would have thought when I assumed the chairmanship of this committee. I believe that, per se, assumes that this amendment plugs all the so-called loopholes so there will not be any Enron end runs. I repledge that I will work with any Senator who has an amendment that they think improves upon this bill. That does not mean, however, that every amendment that comes along, that says it makes this bill better, is going to be one that this Senator accepts. I do not want to return to the regulation of PUHCA as a way of protecting the consumers. Quite to the contrary. I believe its day has come. It has served its purpose. There are a number of letters of support for this electricity amendment which I am offering. Let me start with the administration. They say they support the substitute electricity amendment and believe it will effectively modernize our Nation's antiquated electricity laws. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association: Supports passage of the carefully crafted Domenici amendment without modification. The American Public Power Association: Strongly supports the compromise in its totality without modification. The Large Public Power Council: Supports the electricity substitute without modification. Electric utility companies such as Mid-America, Allegheny, and Xcel, have offered their support for the Domenici electricity amendment, and I have now told my colleagues that it is supported by 13 Senators. Because it is bipartisan, we might call it the Domenici-Landrieu amendment. For those who claim we need a balanced energy policy, here is a balanced electric title with wide support that needs to be included in our final bill. Some would add changes to it, and we are willing to look at them, but those who understand the complexities of the issues known as the Domenici electricity amendment know it represents a fair common ground. That is why there is support for this amendment without modification. I know there will be a number of second-degree amendments, and I am willing to look at them. I have already said I am willing to look specifically at amendments from the distinguished Senator from Washington, Ms. Cantwell. I will look at them carefully. I understand the significance of the problem she confronts. I do not support any amendments yet, and obviously if they disturb the delicate and sometimes gentle balance in this bill, I will have to oppose them. I will look with genuine interest, with the best talent I have, at amendments that Senators have if they think they really address the issues that have beset this country over the past 25, 26 months in terms of natural gas, utility prices, and utility companies and their shenanigans, such as at Enron. The amendment is now pending. I am very proud of it, and I am pleased to be at this point. I thank the Chair for recognition, and I thank the Senate for paying attention. We are going to be open to amendments, and I understand my friend and colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, will probably have an amendment shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: I just returned, and I apologize. Where are we now? As I understand it, some time was used on a matter other than this bill charged to other matters. How much time is left now, and who has the time?

Mr. DOMENICI. I note the distinguished minority whip is here.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I have how many minutes?

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I will try to do it in that period of time. I ask unanimous consent for 3 minutes instead of the 2 minutes and something.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I think I am going to do it in 2 minutes and whatever few seconds. First, I have been looking forward to this debate all day because it is a very mature debate. The Senate spent a good deal of time last year discussing these two amendments, as well as others. The Feinstein amendment we agreed to and that we will be talking about, I think we discussed it heretofore also, but in any event, a lot of time has been spent discussing these amendments. In addition to these amendments, I remind Senators that we have already adopted an amendment, that came as quite a surprise, by Senator Landrieu that would require the President to develop a plan to reduce domestic petroleum consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2013. Since major reductions in oil consumption are most likely going to be achieved through reductions in the use of transport fuels, the President, as a result of the Landrieu amendment, will probably have to focus on measures to increase fuel economy. I suggest to Senators that the Landrieu amendment may obviate the need for further debate. Nonetheless, we are debating and we will continue to debate. It seems to me the Landrieu amendment gives the President the kind of authority and flexibility needed in this country if, in fact, this issue is as important as it is being alluded to. Keeping that in mind, if the Senate must choose among the offered CAFE amendments, I must lend my support to the amendment offered by Senator Bond and Senator Levin. Under Bond-Levin, standards will be based upon sound science and solid technical advice. Their amendment mandates that NHTSA experts set a new CAFE number considering jobs, safety, technology, and other key factors. The Bond-Levin amendment passed overwhelmingly last year. I do not think much has changed. As a matter of fact, we are a little bit more secure in terms of energy now. We are still using a lot, maybe more, but the world is a little more secure in terms of oil dependence. The amendment they have offered is what I would call a commonsense amendment. It would not adversely affect employment, safety, or consumer choice, but it would do the job. Incidentally, the amendment is supported by the United Auto Workers, the National Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the Association of Manufacturers, the Farm Bureau of America, and over 30 additional associations. When combined with the considerable tax incentives for advanced vehicle technology in the Finance Committee package, the Bond-Levin amendment offers a sensible way to achieve fuel efficiency gains and to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It does so in a way that would not hurt the United States economy, increase vehicle cost to consumers, and cost American jobs or endanger lives. I understand the distinguished Senator from Illinois has about 3 minutes, after which time we will start a vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I thank Senator Cantwell for her cooperation. First, I assure her that what we have just done in no way jeopardizes her rights to offer amendments. She has not only one but maybe a number of amendments she wants to offer to the so-called electricity provisions. That will be offered next, and clearly we are going to be on it until Senators have no more amendments. So we are going to be here long enough for the amendments of Senator Cantwell to be offered, whatever they are and however many there are. Amendment No. 1412

Mr. DOMENICI. I send the electricity amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, ``on or in relation.''

Mr. DOMENICI. I agree. The Senator can have an up-or-down vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, we are preparing a unanimous consent request with reference to CAFE that has a reasonable chance. I wish to say to everyone, the distinguished Senator from Alaska just suggested that we attempt to get this bill completed, suggesting that we sit down and try to find some alternative. In this Senator's humble opinion, there are ample votes to get the pending bill passed. Individual Senators, justifiably, have reason for delay. That is their business, and they are going to do just that. The question is how long will they delay and to what end. There is no question that the Senator is correct with respect to natural gas. There are even other provisions with reference to natural gas. But the issue now is to get an agreement where we can have some votes. It appears to me that we are now close to getting something done on CAFE. There are two very important CAFE amendments. We are trying to get them written up where we will get them scheduled for debate and votes shortly after the recess this afternoon, after which the pending amendment will obviously be the Campbell amendment, and we will attempt to dispose of that amendment. Then we are free to move with dispatch, I say to the Senator from Alaska. I wonder if we are pretty close to getting a unanimous consent request?

Mr. DOMENICI. Yes, I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. Might we count his time now? I have no objection. He is going to get some time in the unanimous consent request. I ask that whatever time he uses now be counted.

Mr. DOMENICI. I will be pleased to yield.

Mr. DOMENICI. He will. Did the Senator ask for an up-or-down vote on his amendment?

Mr. DOMENICI. I cannot give the Senator that assurance. It is not totally up to me. If it was up to me, it would be all right. It is not up to me.

Mr. DOMENICI. It is not included.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Senators be permitted to speak in relation to amendments Nos. 1384 and 1386: Senator Levin, 10 minutes; Senator Bond, 10 minutes; Senator Lott, 10 minutes, to follow Senator Durbin; Senator Stabenow, 10 minutes; Senator Lautenberg, 10 minutes; Senator Durbin, 40 minutes; Senator Bingaman, 5 minutes; Senator Domenici, 5 minutes. Further, that the Bond amendment be amended with a Bingaman second-degree amendment which is at the desk and has been agreed to by both sides. Further, I ask unanimous consent that following the use or yielding back of the time, the votes occur on the Durbin amendment No. 1384, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Bond amendment No. 1386, as amended, at a time determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader, and that there be no second-degree amendments in order to the amendments prior to the votes in relation to the amendments.

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, with the concurrence of the Democratic leader, the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739, en bloc, under the following conditions for debate only: Senators Grassley, 45; Baucus, 45; Hollings, 60; Daschle, 30; Jeffords, 60; Sessions in control of 45; Hatch, 15; Stevens, 15; Cornyn, 15; Feinstein, 60. I further ask that upon the use or yielding back of the time, the bills be read a third time and the Senate immediately proceed to a Senate resolution regarding immigration provisions included in the Singapore and Chile free trade agreements; the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; provided, further, that the Senate then proceed to a vote on passage of the Singapore free trade agreement followed by a vote on passage of the Chile free trade agreement, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOMENICI. On the unanimous consent I just read?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. Before we proceed to Senator Durbin, I say to all the Senators, so there will be no misunderstanding, we are going to dispose of the CAFE amendments this afternoon. That means that the next amendment which will be before us is the amendment regarding Indians. If there continues to be objection that we cannot set it aside, we will vote either on it or in relation to it immediately following disposition of the CAFE amendments. It is the intention of the manager that that occur, after which time it is the intention of the manager to proceed to lay before the Senate the electricity amendment which has been in the hands of Senators for almost 4 days now. I thank everyone for their cooperation thus far. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, before the distinguished minority leader leaves the floor, might I say we, too, are prepared to move quickly to the Durbin amendment. Senator Bingaman and I are writing up a list we would agree on as to how we would proceed the next couple days. The problem is, the pending amendment is the Campbell amendment on Indians, and we were going to ask if we could set it aside so we could proceed with Durbin and then proceed with the subsequent amendment on automobiles which is just pending, and right on down--we have a list-- including getting the amendment on electricity offered today for debate. But there is an objection to our proceeding. So that means we probably will have to take one of two actions: either put the electricity amendment on the Indian amendment, which I do not like, or we do the Indian amendment first. I don't know if we can do that. So it is too bad. Whoever is objecting, it would be good if they would not object to just setting the Indian amendment aside. It is being worked on. It is not a game breaker; it is just a question that there are now people who want to work it out as compared with fighting over it. Senator Bingaman is here. I think he wishes to speak.