Byron Dorgan

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah stated that when he finishes his presentation, he expects the Senator from California to be recognized, after which he expects to be recognized. Does the Senator from Utah have a right to yield the floor to the Senator from California?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Utah has priority recognition as manager of the bill. He may seek the floor on that basis following the presentation by the Senator from California, not by prearrangement, however; is that correct?

Mr. DORGAN. Thank you.

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Vermont yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. I listened to some of the complaints on the floor recently while I was in my office. They were concerned about not moving ahead on energy. I guess the obvious question is--we didn't bring up the judge; we are not requiring a vote on the judge; we are not requiring a vote on the trade agreements; and there is no requirement to vote on the trade agreements this week. There is no requirement to vote on this judge this week. So isn't the proposition that those who are scheduling this place, who insist on a vote on a judge, insist on bringing up trade agreements in the middle of the discussion on energy, isn't that what is causing the delay?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if the----

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, further inquiring of the Senator from Vermont, is it the case, then, that there are judge candidates that could be brought to the Senate floor without any controversy at all, which would require very little time? Those are not the ones brought to the floor. Very controversial nominations are brought to the Senate floor, and complaints arise because someone wants to debate it. Isn't it the point that we didn't bring this judgeship to the floor for a cloture vote?

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator indicated we were dealing with very important issues today. Indeed we were. I mention the Cantwell amendment, which lost by two votes. It was a very significant amendment which I think, in the rear view mirror of public policy, will turn out to be one of the most important amendments turned down by the Senate dealing with energy. We know what is happening on the west coast. Firms bilked people out of billions of dollars. There is substantial criminal investigation still ongoing and the proposition today on the Energy bill was important: Will there be adequate protections for consumers, and will we do something about the scandals that occurred on the west coast and stand up and support the interests of consumers and prevent manipulation of energy markets? That amendment failed by two votes. There was a significant debate, a big amendment. These are big, important issues. The question is, Why are we not continuing to work on the Energy bill? What interrupted it? Have we done that or has someone else brought something else to the floor of the Senate?

Mr. DORGAN. If the Senator will yield further, and I am sorry to continue to inquire, at this point, is there a cloture vote that is now scheduled on Mr. Pryor? Is there a vote scheduled and, if so, when is it scheduled?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I inquire further, if a cloture motion has been filed and it ripens tomorrow and we presumably would have a cloture vote on this nomination tomorrow, for those tonight who are concerned about not moving ahead on energy, we could resolve that by vitiating the cloture motion vote tomorrow. I was sitting in my office listening to those complaining that we are not moving ahead on energy, understanding it was not us who brought this judgeship forward. We did not put forward the proposal that we have to do two free-trade agreements this week. It seems to me, at least with respect to the judgeships, perhaps what ought to be done is unanimous consent ought to be entertained to vitiate the cloture vote tomorrow on this judge and move on. After all, there is no reason that we have to vote on this judge tomorrow. This nomination has not been waiting a great length of time. It can be done in September. For those who are worried about moving ahead on energy-- and we should--it seems to me what we probably ought to do is join together and vitiate this cloture vote, move on, and continue with the Energy bill tonight. Does the Senator think that is an appropriate course?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, if I may address the Senator from Vermont with one final inquiry, it seems to me if the issue in the Senate is we have limited time and we have a substantial amount of work to do on energy--I was at the White House yesterday. President Bush called a number of us down to the White House to talk about the urgent need to pass this Energy bill. If that is, in fact, the case--and I believe it is and the majority leader has said it is--in order to get back on this Energy bill, it seems to me what we should do--and I encourage the majority leader to do this--is vitiate the cloture vote on the judgeship. We do not need to do it this week. We all know we do not. He can decide we do not have to bring up the two free-trade agreements this week. There is nothing urgent about those agreements. That need not be done this week. If the President is correct--and I believe he is--and if the majority leader is correct--and I believe he is--that this Energy bill ought to move, it is urgent public business, then let's move back to the Energy bill and do it now. I encourage the majority leader to make that decision.

Mr. DORGAN. The Senator from Vermont has the time. I thank the Senator from Vermont for yielding to me. I, again, say to the majority leader, I do not want to hear people complaining about the fact that we are not on the Energy bill. We are not making progress on the bill because the majority leader and others said we have to move to the judgeships and then move to the trade agreements. The fact is, they are the ones taking us off the Energy bill, not us. We ought to offer the next amendment right now on the Energy bill and vitiate the cloture vote tomorrow morning on the judgeship. That will solve the problem.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to yield for one more question.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, would it make the most sense to have a final vote on the Energy bill when we have finished our work on the Energy bill? And wouldn't that best be accommodated by not going off and on to come up with judgeships and trade agreements? Wouldn't the best approach to reaching a final vote on the Energy bill be to stop bringing to the floor of the Senate other business, business that need not be done now?

Mr. DORGAN. I continue my reservation to object. Let me just say that I speak fairly well for myself on this floor, and I have never suggested that in exchange for anything we have a time certain. What I suggested is that if we want to finish this Energy bill, we be able to offer the amendments on the title and debate the amendments. We are not going to get to that point if we keep interrupting the Energy bill with judges and trade agreements. If we believe this is urgent--and the President says it is, I believe it is, others believe it is--let's get back to it this moment. Let's vitiate the cloture vote tomorrow on the judgeship. Let's hold over the free-trade agreements until September and decide this is important, as we have always said it was, and move to finish this Energy bill. I am not talking about a time certain. The time for finishing it is when we finish the amendments, have debate on the amendments, and have votes on the amendments. We can do that if I ask unanimous consent to vitiate the cloture vote tomorrow, but I guess I cannot do that under a reservation of objection.

Mr. DORGAN. I object.

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. DORGAN. Does the Senator from Utah, does the chairman of the committee, have the opportunity to yield the floor to another Member of the Senate?

Mr. DORGAN. What did the Senator from Utah just try to do?

Mr. DORGAN. I object.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from the State of Washington yield for a question?

Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I know she has limited time. I will be very brief, but I did want to ask the question. It seems to me this electricity title is critically important. I heard my colleague from California ask some questions. I chaired the hearings that dealt with the Enron abuses and other abuses in California and the west coast when I was chairing a subcommittee of the Commerce Committee. What happened there was egregious. It was wholesale stealing, and I use the word ``stealing'' in a very direct way. There are massive criminal investigations underway. We have heard the terms Get Shorty, Fat Boy, Death Star--the schemes we unearthed. The people, in memoranda inside the company, were saying: Here is the way we are going to cheat consumers. They created congestion, and they then got paid for removing the congestion that they created. They actually deliberately cheated consumers, not to the tune of a couple of loaves of bread but to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. It seems to me, as this energy title is written, there is not one person in the Senate--not one--who would stand up and say: It is fine for consumers to be confronted with that sort of manipulation and cheating or criminal behavior. Not one would say we support that kind of behavior. If that is the case, if no one is going to support that, and they would not, then should we not write an electricity title that represents the best ideas of both sides of the political aisle here; that says we are going to stop criminal behavior; we are going to stop the kind of activities that attempt to steal from consumers? I ask the Senator from Washington, have you had an opportunity, or perhaps has the ranking member of the committee had an opportunity, to sit down with those who wrote the electricity title, which we received last Friday, and talk to them about perhaps writing it together so we all accomplish that which we say we intend to accomplish--stopping this kind of manipulation and cheating? Because it did exist and it will again if we do not plug the hole.

Mr. DORGAN

Mr. DORGAN. Madam President, I wanted to make the point and ask the question on the electricity title. The Senator from New Mexico indicated that all amendments would be available to be offered, and I appreciate that. This title, of course, is somewhat controversial.

Mr. DORGAN. The question of protection for consumers is very important. It is a very complicated title. I hope everyone in the Senate wants to plug the holes that existed with respect to some of the previous price manipulations that went on, on the west coast. My hope is that it is not just a case of allowing people to offer amendments but to have the staffs on both sides to actively work together so that we understand these provisions and actually plug the holes that exist that failed to protect consumers on the west coast in the last couple of years. I know that is what the Senator would like to have happen. I know we have people on this side who want that to happen. I hope we can work together to make sure we understand it and then fix it.