Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Texas (Mrs. Hutchison) is necessary absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I compliment my colleague. I am disappointed in the minority leader's statement, and also its tone. A lot of us came back from the one-week break for the Fourth of July and said we have work to do, we have appropriations bills to pass, we have product liability reform bill to pass, we have the IRS reform bill. And then somebody says this is an unbelievable procedure. No, it is not. We are moving to a conference report. That has priority under the rules of the Senate. We are moving to a conference report on a bill that already passed the House and the Senate, and, hopefully, the President will sign it. I think it may be one of the most notable and significant achievements of this Congress. Then our colleagues say, wait a minute, you are denying us an opportunity to offer an amendment. I disagree. The Senator from Arkansas had an amendment on the space station that lasted most of the afternoon. We were clearly willing to take amendments. We had an amendment that Senator Kohl from Wisconsin and I were going to offer dealing with FHA. That was bipartisan. We were trying to do the Senate's work. As a matter of fact, the Senate was planning on staying on the VA appropriations bill so we could finish tonight, tomorrow, or the next day, to do our work. The minority leader tried to place an amendment--or did file an amendment called the Patients' Bill of Rights on the appropriations bill. He has a right to do so, but he knows it is not the time or place to do it. For the information of our colleagues and the viewing public, the majority leader has already said we will take up the so-called issue dealing with health care and the regulation of managed care, with the very nice title of ``The Patients' Bill of Rights.'' We will take it up this month. But in the meantime, let's finish our work, let's pass the IRS reform bill, let's pass appropriations bills. We are willing to have a decent amount of time on the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights this month and to consider alternatives. The Senator from Massachusetts has an alternative. I am working on an alternative. I may have a couple of other ideas. And we are willing to consider relevant amendments. I think it is a mistake to do it all month. Maybe some want to. Maybe they think there is political fodder to be gained. Some of us know we have some work to do. That is our intention. The majority leader made it clear that we have work to do. We are going to be voting on Mondays and Fridays. We should be passing bills. We have only passed 2 appropriations bills; we have 13 to do. The House passed five, and next week they will probably pass another five. We are, in the meantime, hoping to get two bills done this week. Unfortunately, instead, the minority said we need to put the Patients' Bill of Rights on one and then the smoking bill--even though we have spent 4 weeks on the tobacco bill. Maybe if they came up with a better alternative, we could pass a bill. But they came up with one that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and I think we rightfully rejected it. They said, ``We don't have an opportunity to debate our issues.'' They had 4 weeks on the so-called tobacco bill. Campaign finance reform has been in the Senate on numerous occasions, including this Congress. We insisted on having one amendment that said campaign contributions would be voluntary. Most of our colleagues on the Democrat side said, ``No, no, we can't have voluntary campaign contributions. That would be unheard of. We can't have that kind of reform.'' One of our colleagues said that the Senate can't work this way. Really, what they are trying to say is, ``We want to have product liability reform on the floor, and we want to dump our entire Democrat agenda on,'' half of which they tried and could not get passed previously. They want to dump it on this bill or on the appropriations bills, and they will keep trying until maybe something will stick. And then they said, ``Wait a minute, if you file cloture''--cloture, for the information of people not aware of the Senate rules, it would eliminate a lot of extraneous amendments. They are acting like that hasn't happened before. George Mitchell, as majority leader, was the instigator of the quick-draw cloture motion. He would file cloture so fast, it would make your head spin. He did it time and time again. I don't like cloture. I think it happens to be too restrictive. The Senator from Washington, who was managing the bill, has said we are perfectly willing to work with colleagues if they have amendments they want to discuss on product liability. We can work that up and come up with an agreement. Obviously, our colleagues on the minority side said, ``No. We want to put our whole agenda on. We want another debate on tobacco and the Patients' Bill of Rights, and debate on schools or education''--you name it. They want to put everything on there except product liability. In other words, they don't really want product liability. They have that right, but we also have a right to try to get the Senate's business done. So we are going to pass the conference report on IRS reform. We are going to take that up tomorrow. Again, I hope all of my colleagues will support that. We are going to have a vote on cloture on product liability reform. If colleagues are really interested in having legitimate amendments dealing with that issue, they could make a proposal and we could probably work that out--if we keep the amendments relevant. Are we going to say you can dump your entire agenda on it? No. At least it is my hope that we don't do that. That is the reason we have cloture--to keep amendments germane, finish our work, and be done with it. So I am disappointed in the rhetoric and the tone that we heard tonight. I hope we will come back and say, wait a minute, we only have 4 weeks this month and a few weeks in September--all of the month of September, and maybe part of October to finish the Senate's business. We have to pass a lot of appropriations bills. I still hope we will get a budget. I hope we will pass tax relief. So we have some significant reform that needs to happen, and we need to do the work of the Senate. I notice my friend from Massachusetts on the floor. He has a bill called the Patients' Bill of Rights. I am perfectly willing to debate that issue. We are willing to spend some time on that issue and give colleagues a vote on the Democrat proposal, which has been recently introduced--I guess today--on the VA-HUD appropriations bill. It doesn't belong on an appropriations bill. There is a point of order. That is legislation on an appropriations bill. That is the reason we have the rule. It does not belong there. The majority leader said we will take it up sometime this month, and with some amendments dealing with that issue, relevant health care amendments. If our colleagues are just interested in rhetorical flourishes and maybe campaign issues, they can make that attempt. But that won't legislate. That won't change the law. If they are interested in changing the law, I urge them to work with us. Let's come up with an agreement where we can bring the issue up, have an adequate amount of debate on the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights, and have different alternatives considered and voted on. I make that point. This side is willing. We had a significant debate on tobacco. We are willing to have a debate on the so-called Patients' Bill of Rights. We have had debate on campaign reform. We have had debate on education. Now we have to finish the appropriations bills. We have to do the work of the Senate. It is going to take both sides working together to make that happen. I hope we will have greater cooperation exhibited in the future for the Senate to really get its work done in a timely, efficient, and productive manner. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), and the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Stevens) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth), are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent because of a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent because of death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to a death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is absent due to death in the family. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) would vote no.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter), is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) and the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Roth) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Helms) would vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett) and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Utah (Mr. Bennett), the Senator from Rhode Island (Mr. Chafee), the Senator from New York (Mr. D'Amato), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Domenici), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. Murkowski), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth) is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. Faircloth is necessarily absent. I also announce that the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Specter) is absent because of illness.

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Consumer Choice Act. For the last two years hearings and workshops have been held in both the House and Senate examining the issue of restructuring the electric industry. Many bills have been introduced on this issue by both Congressmen and Senators, some comprehensive and some dealing with more discreet issues such as repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company (PUHCA) or repeal of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The bill that I am introducing today cuts to the heart of the issue: do we or don't we support allowing consumers to choose their electric supplier? Do we or don't we support a national competitive market in electricity? I believe the answer to these questions is a resounding ``yes''! This Congress believes competition is good, that free markets work and that every American will benefit from a competitive electric industry. The Electric Consumer Choice Act is intended to begin the process of achieving a national, competitive electricity market. It will establish consumer choice of electric suppliers as a goal this Congress firmly supports. It achieves this in a simple, straight-forward method. First, it eliminates electric monopolies by prohibiting the granting of exclusive rights to sell to electric utilities. Second, it prohibits undue discrimination against consumers purchasing electricity in interstate commerce. Third, it provides for access to local distribution facilities and finally, it allows a state to impose reciprocity requirements on out-of-state utilities. The bill also makes it clear that nothing in this act expands the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or limits the authority of a state to continue to regulate retail sales and distribution of electric energy in a manner consistent with the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The premise of this bill is that all attributes of today's electric energy market--generation, transmission, distribution and both wholesale and retail sales--are either in or affect interstate commerce. Therefore, any State regulation of these attributes that unduly discriminates against the interstate market for electric power violates the Commerce Clause unless such State action is protected by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has interpreted Part II of the Federal Power Act (FPA) as protecting State regulation of generation, local distribution, intrastate transmission and retail sales that unduly discriminates against the interstate market for electric power. The Court has reasoned that Congress, in the FPA, determined that the federal government needed only to regulate wholesale sales and interstate transmission in order to adequately protect interstate commerce in electric energy. Thus, all other aspects of the electric energy market were reserved to the States and protected from challenges under the Commerce Clause. The Electric Consumer Choice Act amends the FPA to eliminate the protection provided for State regulation that establishes, maintains, or enforces an exclusive right to sell electric energy or that unduly discriminates against any consumer who seeks to purchase electric energy in interstate commerce. This bill provides consumers and electric energy suppliers with the means to achieve retail choice in all States by January 1, 2002. It does not impose a federal statutory mandate on the States. It does not preempt the States' traditional jurisdiction to regulate the aspects of the electric power market in the reserved realm--generation, local distribution, intrastate transmission, or retail sales--it merely limits the scope of what the States can do in that realm. It does not expand or extend FERC jurisdiction into the aspects of traditional State authority. As I stated earlier, this bill is intended to provide every consumer a choice when it comes to electricity suppliers. It is intended to establish that this Congress supports national competition when it comes to the generation of electricity. It is intended to be the beginning, not the end of the process. There are many other issues that need to be addressed at the federal level to facilitate a national market for electricity. Some of these issues include repeal of PURPA and PUHCA, taxation differences between various electric providers, clarification of jurisdiction over transmission, ensuring reliability, providing for inclusion of Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority in a national market, and other issues that can only be addressed at the Federal level. These issues need to be addressed and should be addressed. But while these issues are being debated we should ensure that progress towards customer choice proceeds. I am proud to say that my state of Oklahoma has been in the forefront of opening up it's electricity markets to competition. Seventeen other states have also moved to open their markets. It is my hope that the Electric Consumer Choice Act will facilitate this process nationally. To that end, I am introducing this bill today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Electric Consumer Choice Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Electric Consumer Choice Act. For the last two years hearings and workshops have been held in both the House and Senate examining the issue of restructuring the electric industry. Many bills have been introduced on this issue by both Congressmen and Senators, some comprehensive and some dealing with more discreet issues such as repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company (PUHCA) or repeal of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA). The bill that I am introducing today cuts to the heart of the issue: do we or don't we support allowing consumers to choose their electric supplier? Do we or don't we support a national competitive market in electricity? I believe the answer to these questions is a resounding ``yes''! This Congress believes competition is good, that free markets work and that every American will benefit from a competitive electric industry. The Electric Consumer Choice Act is intended to begin the process of achieving a national, competitive electricity market. It will establish consumer choice of electric suppliers as a goal this Congress firmly supports. It achieves this in a simple, straight-forward method. First, it eliminates electric monopolies by prohibiting the granting of exclusive rights to sell to electric utilities. Second, it prohibits undue discrimination against consumers purchasing electricity in interstate commerce. Third, it provides for access to local distribution facilities and finally, it allows a state to impose reciprocity requirements on out-of-state utilities. The bill also makes it clear that nothing in this act expands the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or limits the authority of a state to continue to regulate retail sales and distribution of electric energy in a manner consistent with the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The premise of this bill is that all attributes of today's electric energy market--generation, transmission, distribution and both wholesale and retail sales--are either in or affect interstate commerce. Therefore, any State regulation of these attributes that unduly discriminates against the interstate market for electric power violates the Commerce Clause unless such State action is protected by an act of Congress. The Supreme Court has interpreted Part II of the Federal Power Act (FPA) as protecting State regulation of generation, local distribution, intrastate transmission and retail sales that unduly discriminates against the interstate market for electric power. The Court has reasoned that Congress, in the FPA, determined that the federal government needed only to regulate wholesale sales and interstate transmission in order to adequately protect interstate commerce in electric energy. Thus, all other aspects of the electric energy market were reserved to the States and protected from challenges under the Commerce Clause. The Electric Consumer Choice Act amends the FPA to eliminate the protection provided for State regulation that establishes, maintains, or enforces an exclusive right to sell electric energy or that unduly discriminates against any consumer who seeks to purchase electric energy in interstate commerce. This bill provides consumers and electric energy suppliers with the means to achieve retail choice in all States by January 1, 2002. It does not impose a federal statutory mandate on the States. It does not preempt the States' traditional jurisdiction to regulate the aspects of the electric power market in the reserved realm--generation, local distribution, intrastate transmission, or retail sales--it merely limits the scope of what the States can do in that realm. It does not expand or extend FERC jurisdiction into the aspects of traditional State authority. As I stated earlier, this bill is intended to provide every consumer a choice when it comes to electricity suppliers. It is intended to establish that this Congress supports national competition when it comes to the generation of electricity. It is intended to be the beginning, not the end of the process. There are many other issues that need to be addressed at the federal level to facilitate a national market for electricity. Some of these issues include repeal of PURPA and PUHCA, taxation differences between various electric providers, clarification of jurisdiction over transmission, ensuring reliability, providing for inclusion of Power Marketing Administrations and the Tennessee Valley Authority in a national market, and other issues that can only be addressed at the Federal level. These issues need to be addressed and should be addressed. But while these issues are being debated we should ensure that progress towards customer choice proceeds. I am proud to say that my state of Oklahoma has been in the forefront of opening up it's electricity markets to competition. Seventeen other states have also moved to open their markets. It is my hope that the Electric Consumer Choice Act will facilitate this process nationally. To that end, I am introducing this bill today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Electric Consumer Choice Act be printed in the Record.