Gordon Smith

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. The Supreme Court, I understand, denied certiorari, thereby upholding the fourth circuit decision that allows for this kind of prohibition of fundraising from special interest groups while the North Carolina legislature is in session.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That is correct.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. That would be all I would need.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I don't believe it would. They can give a hard money contribution of $1,000 per campaign.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, this amendment is a very simple one but one that I believe will go a long way toward restoring public confidence in elected leaders and alleviating the perception that politicians are beholden to special interests. My amendment simply prohibits Senate and House candidates from accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists when Congress is in session. The amendment is fair and it is balanced. It applies to both incumbents and challengers. Since the danger of corruption or the appearance of corruption applies with equal force to challengers and incumbents, Congress has ample justification for imposing the same fundraising constraints on both incumbents and challengers. This is not new. This is a law that currently operates in many States. In my own State of Oregon, we have long had just such a law on the books; one that I was proud to stand squarely behind as a State legislator. The Oregon law first enacted in 1974 has been in effect for 27 years and has been integral to ensuring Oregonians' confidence in the integrity of their political system at the State level. The core tenet and assumption behind the McCain-Feingold legislation is that money in politics corrupts elected officials. Backers of the McCain-Feingold bill often use catch words and phrases, such as ``quid pro quo,'' to suggest that money can buy not only legislative action but legislators themselves. This is not my view. It is my belief that the vast majority of the men and women with whom I serve in the public process and in this body possess the highest degree of professional and personal integrity. However, if the public perceives that campaigns are corrupt, that money talks, then I think we owe it to the public to allay those concerns. Prohibiting contributions from registered lobbyists to candidates and Federal officeholders while Congress is in session will go a long way toward quelling the perception that we are bought and sold. My amendment addresses the public's fears directly by eliminating what they view as the disease rather than trying to just treat the symptoms. We are not breaking new ground because we will be doing what other States have done. Oregon is joined by at least 10 other States with laws just like this that prohibit candidates and officeholders from soliciting or accepting contributions while their legislatures are in session In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, upheld the constitutionality of North Carolina's law prohibiting lobbyist contributions and solicitations while its general assembly is in session, stating that the law ``serves to prevent corruption and the appearance of corruption.'' The Fourth Circuit concluded that ``in the end, North Carolina law does nothing more than recognize that lobbyists are paid to persuade legislators, not to purchase them.'' Last month the Supreme Court agreed by denying the petition for review of this very case. So I am confident that my amendment will withstand judicial scrutiny. My amendment only restricts a candidate or officeholder from accepting contributions at a certain time and place, not if they can eventually. This is no different than time and place regulation of other first amendment issues. Furthermore, I think it is important to point out that my amendment is narrowly crafted to prohibit candidates and officeholders from accepting contributions from lobbyists and the political action committees that employ them. My amendment does not place the burden on lobbyists offering contributions to candidates but, rather, squarely and more fittingly on the candidate. The onus, therefore, is on the candidate or officeholder, not the lobbyist. In closing, let me emphasize that the touchstone issue is the appearance of influence pedaling and corruption and the role that money plays. If money in the system corrupts, then my amendment lessens its role. Diminishing the role of money is also one of the stated goals of the McCain-Feingold bill. But unlike the McCain-Feingold bill, my amendment does so, I believe, in a constitutional way. Again, my amendment merely prohibits House and Senate candidates and officeholders from accepting political donations from lobbyists while Congress is in session. My amendment is evenhanded, it is constitutional, and it addresses the perceived problem that politicians can be bought and sold, and my amendment does so in a way that does not shut down the entire universe of citizen participation in our political process. I hope my colleagues will unanimously support my amendment, following Oregon's lead, and that of other States, to restore confidence in the integrity of our political system. Finally, some of my colleagues will worry that this includes the public generally. It does not. It involves registered lobbyists, PACs, and all special interest groups. A citizen can send in a contribution to a candidate. That is fine. But what is disturbing to people is the nexus that exists between legislating in the morning and fundraising at night with the very same industries. This will prohibit that. We will separate these two activities and restore some confidence that people are entitled to have in their political process. Some people will say this just isn't possible because the Congress is always in session. There may be an unintended but beneficial consequence. We may have shorter congressional sessions. We may get our work done more quickly, and we may be able to thereby provide the American people a little less rhetoric, a lot more action, a lot more voting, getting their job done and getting home to be with the folks and ultimately to meet with these interest groups. If they want to support you, fine, but they can't do it while you are about the people's business in making law. I encourage a unanimous vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to say a few closing words on this debate, which has been a good one. All the neighbors of California are asking--at least those affected by the Bonneville Power Administration--is that they be paid. I believe California wants to pay. Ultimately, they have to work through their law that makes it difficult to pay. We want them to do that. We need them to do that because people in the Northwest already are paying higher rates because of this California law. We should not have to pay additional, higher rates. I thank the Chair.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

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

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, my second-degree amendment is very similar to that of my colleague, Senator Wyden's. I have changed only the date of the applicability for bankruptcy filings to those that occur on or after March 7, 2001, and I have further clarified that just and reasonable debt owed will be paid to government agencies. I did this because it is important to recognize the efforts made by the State of California during the first week of March to begin to restore stability to the west coast energy market. On March 5, the Governor of California announced that the State department of water resources had signed 40 long-term contracts for electricity. Prior to this, the State had required the investor-owned utilities to purchase all their power on the spot market, making these utilities very vulnerable to short-term price spikes. While California is making some headway on restoring the creditworthiness of its utilities, it is imperative that the utilities in California not be able to export their bills to Oregonians and other Western States by seeking bankruptcy protection and avoiding repaying other power providers in the western United States for power that has literally kept the lights on in California in recent months. My constituents and energy-sensitive businesses in Oregon are already feeling the effects of the price volatility in the west. Utilities in the northwest are facing current rate increases of 11 to 50 percent. The customers of the Bonneville Power Administration are facing the prospect of 95 percent rate increases beginning in October, when current contracts expire. Much of the media attention in recent months has focused on the cost and availability of electricity in California. But the West Coast energy market extends to eleven other western States, including Oregon, that are all interconnected by the high- voltage transmission system. That's why avoiding bankruptcy for California's utilities is important for Oregon and other western states. From the middle of December until early February, western utilities were forced to sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for California's failed restructuring effort. In fact, certain Oregon utilities are already receiving bills from California's power exchange for funds owed to the exchange by California utilities. Other utilities are being paid 60 cents on the dollar for sales they made as far back as last November. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration is owed over $100 million for power sales it made into California as long ago as November 2000. I know that certain state officials have refused to consider raising retail rates in California, claiming the State has the highest rates in the Nation. However, let me point out just a few facts about California's energy use from publications by the U.S. Energy Information Administration: California ranks 50th in the Nation in the amount of electricity the state can generate on a per capita basis. In fact, total generation has decreased nearly 10 percent in the last 10 years, while total consumption has increased over 10 percent. In 1999, the average residential bill in California was actually $2.70 less than the average Oregonian's bill. In 1999, Californians actually paid 17 percent below the national average for their monthly electricity bills. Further, California consumers paid 32 percent less than consumers in Florida, $58.30 versus $86.34. To put a human face on what is happening in my State, let me tell you about a letter I recently received from a small school district in my State. Basically, they are pleading for the energy crisis to be fixed because, as a small school district, they are having to take resources away from students to pay energy bills. Their local utility has just added a 20 percent surcharge to the cost of electricity. The district also heats a number of its school buildings with natural gas. In November 1999, the bill was $4,383.59. By November 2000, the bill to heat the same buildings was $11,942. Another small school district in my State is concerned that its power bills may go up by $100,000. For them, that means laying off two teachers. Oregonians area already paying for California's failed experiment in electricity restructuring. It is exacerbated by one of the worst drought years on record in the Northwest. Our rates are going up, but we should not have to pay twice for California's mistakes by being stuck with the unpaid bills for being a good neighbor and helping California keep the lights on in recent months. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment to the Wyden amendment. I offer just a few concluding remarks. What Senator Wyden and I are trying to say to our friends and neighbors in California is that Oregonians are already paying once in the form of higher energy prices because of the situation created by California's law. If there is a bankruptcy, they will pay a second time because the Bonneville Power Administration, in order to make its treasury payments, will be forced to add $100 million or more to the rates charged to Oregon, northwestern customers. This is not right. We are simply saying, as kindly as we can, let's pay our bills. Let's be fair as neighbors. On a personal level, I can only understand how officials of the State government of California must look with horror upon the rate cap that is there that is not allowing price signals for conservation and production to be sent. In very real and human terms, this law has created something of a Frankenstein that is roaming the lands of the Western States and it is wreaking havoc upon jobs, communities, schools, and discretionary income. It isn't right. It isn't fair. I say to my friend from California: A regulated power market can work; a deregulated power market can work. One that is partially regulated and partly deregulated cannot work, as we are seeing to the lament of many people right now. Our hope, Senator Wyden's hope and mine, and others, is that we can simply say, as good neighbors, please fix this law. At the end of the day, if the ratepayers don't pay in California, the California taxpayers will pay because they are selling billions of dollars of bonds right now sucking up State surpluses that should be going to schools, should be going to streets, should be going to serve all kinds of human needs but instead are going to pay inflated power rates. At the end of the day, it is their issue, but it affects all of us. We want simply to say, with this amendment, please fix the law. Please pay this bill because we are in it together. We know that. We care about California being prosperous. Ultimately, the citizens of California will pay. They will pay as ratepayers or they will pay as taxpayers. It is, frankly, their choice. We don't want to be hung further with this obligation. We want to pay our bills. I thank my colleague.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this new and improved Innocence Protection Act. The Innocence Protection Act we introduced last year was widely heralded as providing much-needed improvements to our nation's already strong judicial system. This year, the bill itself has been strengthened, so it can better benefit the truly innocent without imposing undue hardship on our hard-working law enforcement personnel. While our court and law enforcement officials work extremely hard to ensure justice for all, occasionally mistakes are made. To prevent these rare instances, The Innocence Protection Act encourages appropriate use of DNA testing, and provision of competent counsel. The bill also provides for adequate compensation in the rare case that a person is wrongfully imprisoned, and encourages states to examine these situations to prevent their recurrence. The Innocence Protection Act proposes to apply technological advances of the 21st century evenly across the country to ensure that justice is served swiftly and fairly, regardless of where you live. Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty can support this bill, which will only improve the integrity of our Criminal Justice System. By helping ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are behind bars, the innocent can live in a safer world. I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe that there are some times when humankind can act in a manner so odious, so heinous, and so depraved that the right to life is forfeited. Notwithstanding this belief, indeed, because of this belief, I am reintroducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 with Senator Leahy and others today. Clearly, there is a growing interest in this issue in Congress. I feel strongly that this is a bill whose time has come, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure its passage this session.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am proud to be a co-sponsor of this new and improved Innocence Protection Act. The Innocence Protection Act we introduced last year was widely heralded as providing much-needed improvements to our nation's already strong judicial system. This year, the bill itself has been strengthened, so it can better benefit the truly innocent without imposing undue hardship on our hard-working law enforcement personnel. While our court and law enforcement officials work extremely hard to ensure justice for all, occasionally mistakes are made. To prevent these rare instances, The Innocence Protection Act encourages appropriate use of DNA testing, and provision of competent counsel. The bill also provides for adequate compensation in the rare case that a person is wrongfully imprisoned, and encourages states to examine these situations to prevent their recurrence. The Innocence Protection Act proposes to apply technological advances of the 21st century evenly across the country to ensure that justice is served swiftly and fairly, regardless of where you live. Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty can support this bill, which will only improve the integrity of our Criminal Justice System. By helping ensure that the true perpetrators of heinous crimes are behind bars, the innocent can live in a safer world. I am a supporter of the death penalty. I believe that there are some times when humankind can act in a manner so odious, so heinous, and so depraved that the right to life is forfeited. Notwithstanding this belief, indeed, because of this belief, I am reintroducing the Innocence Protection Act of 2001 with Senator Leahy and others today. Clearly, there is a growing interest in this issue in Congress. I feel strongly that this is a bill whose time has come, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House and Senate to ensure its passage this session.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, today I am filing an amendment to S. 287, bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose cost-of-service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at wholesale in the western energy market. My amendment would clarify the circumstances under which the Commission may impose interim limitations on the cost of electric energy, and provide a sunset date. While I applaud my colleague's efforts to help restore stability to the wholesale electricity market on the west coast, I believe S. 287 continues to insulate retail customers in California from the energy crisis in a way that is hampering conservation and investment in new generation. By contrast, my constituents and energy-sensitive businesses in Oregon are already feeling the effects of the price volatility in the west. Utilities in the northwest are facing current rate increases of eleven to fifty percent. The customers of the Bonneville Power Administration are facing the prospect of 95 percent rate increases beginning in October, when current contracts expire. I know that there is significant support for short-term wholesale price caps for the entire western market. However, that doesn't address what is still going on in California, where retail prices are capped at a level that is insulating consumers from the price shocks being felt by the rest of the West. So long as these retail rates remain capped at the current levels, there is no incentive to conserve, and no incentive for additional generation. Both conservation and additional generation are the keys to the long-term solution. Much of the media attention in recent weeks has focused on efforts to keep the lights on in California and to keep that state's two largest utilities from going bankrupt. But the West Coast energy market extends to eleven other western states, including Oregon, that are all interconnected by the high-voltage transmission system. I believe there is more that California can and must do immediately to address this situation. I know the California legislature is grappling with this situation, and I hope it will take the steps to restore the creditworthiness of California's utilities. First and foremost, it must approve further electric rate increases. This is necessary to send the right price signals to Californians to conserve energy. Further, price increases are necessary to help California's investor-owned utilities--which have recently been reduced to ``junk bond'' status--from going bankrupt. Avoiding bankruptcy for these utilities is important for Oregon and other western states. Since the middle of December, Northwest utilities have been forced to sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for California's failed restructuring effort. In fact, certain Oregon utilities are already receiving bills from California's power exchange for funds owed to the exchange by California utilities. In addition, the Bonneville Power Administration is owed over 100 million dollars for power sales it made into California in November 2000. My amendment to the legislation offered by my colleague from California would do the following: It limits the authorities provided to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) to impose west-wide wholesale price caps by stipulating that the wholesale price cap cannot be imposed on sales into any state that has refused to allow utilities to pass on Commission-approved rates, has capped retail rates at levels that do not allow utilities to recover costs on a cost-of- service based rate, or has capped rates at a level that results in a default of payments for electricity. Further, the amendment stipulates that the Secretary of Energy, the Commission, or the courts may not order sales of electricity or natural gas into any such state without guarantees of being paid. It also allows state public utility commissions in other western states to make sure that utility service areas are served before utilities in their respective states can sell into what might be a higher market in California. It also orders the Secretary of Energy to conduct an inquiry into the charges of shifting funds between utilities and parent holding companies. Two weeks ago, at a hearing of the Energy Committee, I asked three California utilities if they were seeing any decrease in demand in response to calls for conservation. The answer was no. I also asked several energy experts if, in their opinion, state officials in California were taking the measures needed to fix their broken restructuring effort. Again, the answer was either ``No'' or ``Mostly, but not completely.'' To put a human face on what is happening in my state, I would like to discuss a letter I recently received from a rural school district in my state. Basically, they are pleading for the energy crisis to be fixed because, as a small school district, they are having to take resources away from students to pay energy bills. Their local utility has just added a 20 percent surcharge to the cost of electricity. The district also heats a number of its school buildings with natural gas. In November 1999, the bill was $4,383.59. By November 2000, the bill to heat the same buildings was $11,942. Another small school district in my state is concerned that its power bills may go up by $100,000. For them, that means laying off two teachers. Oregon is doing its part to conserve, and to build new resources. My amendment today is trying to prod California to send the right price signals to its consumers to join us in this fight.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, as a co-sponsor of S. 235, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001, I would like to urge my colleagues to support this balanced bipartisan bill. I am a new member of the Senate Commerce Committee, and have been privileged to be appointed as Chair of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee. I have also been a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for a number of years. In the past few years, I have heard numerous witnesses discuss the need to obtain more supply and build more energy infrastructure to service the increasing energy demand. On a number of occasions I have heard, for example, that demand in the natural gas market is expected to increase from 22 trillion cubic feet to 30 trillion cubic feet by around 2010 to 2012 and that the interstate natural gas pipeline industry is having to spend over $2.5 billion per year to build the necessary pipeline and storage facilities to meet this demand. More recently, these issues have taken on a sense of urgency as the electricity problems in California have reached beyond that state to affect the availability of electricity in Oregon and to significantly increase the rates that my constituents are paying at this time. I also know that it is important to assure the public that both new pipelines and existing pipelines are safe. The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act puts into place a number of common-sense measures that will encourage pipeline operators to coordinate safety and emergency procedures with national and state officials. The improvements mandated by this bill will help to eliminate accidents and decrease the very real hazards for those who live and work near the pipelines that crisscross our nation. S. 235 requires the Office of Pipeline Safety to promulgate regulations to require operators of natural gas transmission pipelines and hazardous liquid pipelines to evaluate the risks to the pipeline, focusing on areas that are highly populated or, in the case of hazardous liquid pipelines, areas that are environmentally sensitive. S. 235 also provides more opportunity for state and local government input when new regulations are promulgated. States that are interested in acting as interstate agents can participate in special investigations involving incidents or new construction and assume additional inspection or investigatory duties or other activities under the regulations issued by the Office of Pipeline Safety. The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act calls on pipeline operators to review their public education programs for effectiveness and modify them if necessary. Furthermore, S. 235 says the Office of Pipeline Safety may issue standards prescribing the elements of an effective public communications program. As the new Chairman of the Surface Transportation Subcommittee, I will become very involved in this pipeline safety program. I plan to sit down with the staff of the Office of Pipeline Safety to learn more about their plans for implementing legislation and what they may need to improve their effectiveness. I also plan to oversee their activities to make sure that, once Congress passes a reauthorization bill, they will move to implement the intentions of Congress. I know that S. 235 is the product of bipartisan cooperation and I support quick passage of this bill.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I probably should say amen to what the Senator from Idaho has said. I agree with his message. I want to just add one point. Let's assume that caps made sense. I have been told by Federal officials, Bonneville Power Administration officials, that even if you could do it, the power of the Federal Government would reach about two-thirds of the generating capacity in the West. Why is that the case? Well, because a lot of the West's power comes from Canada and comes from Mexico. We haven't the ability to cap their rates. I would like to see us try. I think that would generate quite a response. Moreover, if you did that even to what we could control, what would that then mean to the uncapped power of Canada and Mexico? It would go up even further. I want to point out, as Senator Craig has, that the fundamental flaw in these proposals of cost-plus, or caps, is that they leave in place California's retail cap. As we speak, California's consumption is going up. As California's neighbor, I wish them no harm. I know their swathe economically in our country and in the West. I admire so much about California and would like very much to be a good neighbor. But I don't think many Californians understand what they are doing to their neighboring States. Because of a retail cap, there is absolutely no incentive for Californians to conserve. Those who advocate price caps without the lifting of California's retail price caps are giving the green light for Californians to send their energy bills to Oregonians. That is just wrong. If anybody is serious about correcting this problem by conservation and production, it includes lifting these artificial measures that don't allow the marketplace to work. It is that simple. I had thought the Senator from California was coming with a bill, so I had a second-degree amendment to her's. I appreciate that she has not offered that on the pipeline safety bill. That is a bill that needs to go forward on its own because of its own merit. We will have this hearing and debate. But central to any effort to interfere further in the market that is already suffering because of Government interference must be, as a predicate, that California lift its retail price caps. Anything more or less than that will simply fail and will be a continued abuse upon the neighbors of California. It is wrong, and it should be fixed. I understand the politics of fixing it. It is difficult for their legislature and their Governor, but it is utterly unfair to California's neighbors for them to continue this without considering the impact on everyone else in the grid with them. Mr. President, I will simply conclude my remarks. I was going to put a human face on the consequence of what California has done. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the Chenowith School District be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I think we need to understand what California sending its energy bills to Oregon means to the rest of the West, my State and others. It affects school districts that have not budgeted for 50-, 60-percent increases in energy. Seniors have not budgeted for energy rates going up double, triple. But that is what is, in fact, happening. It isn't right, isn't fair. I want to be a good neighbor, and I will be open to their suggestions; but they must, as a predicate, lift their retail price caps because anything less than that will not produce conservation and will not produce the incentives for new production. I yield the floor.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I further ask unanimous consent that on Monday immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there be a period for the transaction of morning business until 2 p.m. with the first hour under the control of the Democratic leader or his designee and the hour from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. under the control of the Republican leader or his designee.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, January 25. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the majority leader be immediately recognized to offer for the Record the majority party's committee assignments for the 107th Congress; following that action, a brief statement by Senator Biden and Senator Allen for not to exceed 10 minutes each, with the Senate to then automatically stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Monday, January 29, 2001.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I stand before you and the Senate today. As I do this, our Nation is relearning a fundamental lesson--that electricity does not come from hitting a light switch. Our urban areas are getting a painful lesson that the quality of life that we and they enjoy in this Nation is a direct result of resource production. California is scrambling as we speak to keep the lights on from day to day and has had 2 days recently of rolling blackouts. The west coast energy crisis shows no sign of abating and could actually intensify in coming weeks if the region, which is heavily dependent on hydroelectric power, continues to face below average precipitation. The reservoir behind the Grand Coulee Dam, by far the largest of the Federal dams in the Northwest, is at its lowest level in 25 years. The Grand Coulee Dam is also upstream of 10 other dams on the mainstem Columbia River. So downstream powerhouses cannot generate electricity either. Much of the media attention in recent weeks has focused on efforts to keep the lights on in California and to keep the State's two largest utilities from going bankrupt. The west coast energy market extends to 11 other Western States, including Oregon, that are all interconnected by the high-voltage transmission system. I believe there is more that California can and must do immediately to address this situation. First and foremost, it must approve further electric rate increases. I don't normally advocate increases, but this is necessary to send the right signal to Californians that they have to conserve energy. Further, price increases are necessary to help California's investor- owned utilities, which have recently been reduced to junk bond status, from going bankrupt. Avoiding bankruptcy for these utilities is important for Oregon and for other Western States. Since the middle of December, Northwest utilities have been forced, by Federal order, to sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for California's failed restructuring effort. We should not confuse this with deregulation. This is a failed effort at restructuring that incredibly took off, went to a free market in the wholesale, went to a price cap at retail, and then overregulated at production levels. I tell you, when you do that with an expanding economy, you have created a catastrophe. That is what California has created, and its neighbors are now beginning to help shoulder the burden. California must also operate its native generation, including its fossil fuel plants, at full capacity during this crisis. It can also find additional temporary generation. I recently came across a news story from last August about one California utility that was abandoning its efforts to moor a floating power plant in San Francisco Bay as protection against future power shortages. That 95-megawatt emergency powerplant could have provided enough power for 95,000 homes in the area. However, according to this news clip, the company abandoned its efforts because it was ``under fire from environmentalists and skeptical of winning regulatory approval. . . . '' The article also quoted the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as saying, ``The commission was skeptical as to whether the emergency really existed.'' What a difference a few months makes. I wonder if anyone in San Francisco thinks there isn't an emergency now. In response to these tight margins between supply and demand, today I am reintroducing legislation that passed the Senate last Congress that will enhance the reliability of the wholesale transmission system. It is imperative that the transmission grid be operated as efficiently and reliably as possible during times when the margin between supply and demand is so tight. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the President urging him to issue an Executive order directing electricity conservation at all federal facilities throughout the twelve western states. Between federal office buildings, post offices, military bases, prisons, and other facilities, the federal government is among the largest consumers of electricity in the West. The Governors of Oregon and Washington are seeking 10 percent reductions in energy use at state facilities, and I believe this would be an appropriate goal for federal facilities as well. The federal government is also a major producer of electricity in the Western United States. Much of that generation is from hydroelectric facilities. I have expressed concern over the last several weeks that the Columbia and Snake River hydropower facilities not be operated in a manner that jeopardizes salmon recovery efforts in what is shaping up to be a poor water year in the Basin. However, there are many other federal generation facilities throughout the 12 western states that are interconnected by the high- voltage transmission system. Therefore, I asked that the Energy Department be directed to undertake an immediate review of all of these facilities to ensure they are providing as much power as possible during this crisis. It is not just California that needs additional generation, however. According to a recent study by the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Pacific Northwest faces a 25 percent chance of power shortages during this and coming winters. To reduce this probability to a more acceptable level of five percent, the Northwest needs nearly 3,000 megawatts of new generating resources, conservation, or short-term demand management. This report, however, assumed that all the other generation remained equal. Yet in recent years there have been calls to close the nuclear plant WNP2, with a capacity of 1,250 megawatts. Breaching the four lower Snake River dams, which I oppose, would reduce capacity by another 1,200 megawatts, enough power for Seattle. In addition, almost 12,000 megawatts of non-federal hydroelectric power in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, is up for relicensing between now and 2010. More stringent operating criteria could reduce the total amount of power available. New licenses will probably also reduce the operational flexibility of these facilities that makes hydropower so valuable in meeting daily peaks in energy demand. In the face of the numbers I just quoted, I believe it is the height of irresponsibility to even be discussing breaching the four lower Snake River dams. The Endangered Species Act was never intended to force us, as Americans, to dismantle the infrastructure that our parents and grandparents worked so hard to build. The Bush administration is going to have to clean up a huge mess that is not of their making. The assault on domestic energy production and the lack of a national energy strategy over the last eight years are finally coming home to roost. This nation is more dependent on foreign oil than at any time in its history, and crude oil prices are rising as foreign nations are reducing production. Natural gas prices have doubled in recent months. Electricity prices on the West Coast have skyrocketed, and they remain high in the Northeast. The previous administration started out wanting to tax energy production through a BTU tax, as a way to force Americans to conserve. When that wasn't enacted, the past administration went about a systematic assault on energy production. They went after coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants. They opposed the siting of new natural gas pipelines and the expansion of oil refining capacity. They put millions of acres of land off-limits to oil, gas, and coal exploration. The economy, particularly on the west coast, is just beginning to feel the cumulative effects of these actions. The U.S. economy needs energy. It needs abundant, reasonably priced oil, gas and electricity if our economic prosperity is to continue. I want to thank the leadership of the Senate for efforts to craft an energy bill. I know that the Bush administration will work with the Congress to achieve more energy production and more conservation. But I say to my fellow Oregonians and Americans everywhere who care about this issue that we must reconnect the reality dots between the lives we live and the natural resources we demand. At the end of the day, power is not created by hitting a light switch. Food does not come from Safeway. Gasoline does not come from a filling station. These are all things we need, and we must be good stewards of the environment but also remember that using the land does not have to equal abusing the land. But those who advocate that all must be shut down are simply the ones who would visit this trauma that we are now seeing in California on the rest of us as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I stand before you and the Senate today. As I do this, our Nation is relearning a fundamental lesson--that electricity does not come from hitting a light switch. Our urban areas are getting a painful lesson that the quality of life that we and they enjoy in this Nation is a direct result of resource production. California is scrambling as we speak to keep the lights on from day to day and has had 2 days recently of rolling blackouts. The west coast energy crisis shows no sign of abating and could actually intensify in coming weeks if the region, which is heavily dependent on hydroelectric power, continues to face below average precipitation. The reservoir behind the Grand Coulee Dam, by far the largest of the Federal dams in the Northwest, is at its lowest level in 25 years. The Grand Coulee Dam is also upstream of 10 other dams on the mainstem Columbia River. So downstream powerhouses cannot generate electricity either. Much of the media attention in recent weeks has focused on efforts to keep the lights on in California and to keep the State's two largest utilities from going bankrupt. The west coast energy market extends to 11 other Western States, including Oregon, that are all interconnected by the high-voltage transmission system. I believe there is more that California can and must do immediately to address this situation. First and foremost, it must approve further electric rate increases. I don't normally advocate increases, but this is necessary to send the right signal to Californians that they have to conserve energy. Further, price increases are necessary to help California's investor- owned utilities, which have recently been reduced to junk bond status, from going bankrupt. Avoiding bankruptcy for these utilities is important for Oregon and for other Western States. Since the middle of December, Northwest utilities have been forced, by Federal order, to sell their surplus power into California, with no guarantee of being paid. If the California utilities subsequently seek bankruptcy protection, it will be Oregonians who are stuck with the bill for California's failed restructuring effort. We should not confuse this with deregulation. This is a failed effort at restructuring that incredibly took off, went to a free market in the wholesale, went to a price cap at retail, and then overregulated at production levels. I tell you, when you do that with an expanding economy, you have created a catastrophe. That is what California has created, and its neighbors are now beginning to help shoulder the burden. California must also operate its native generation, including its fossil fuel plants, at full capacity during this crisis. It can also find additional temporary generation. I recently came across a news story from last August about one California utility that was abandoning its efforts to moor a floating power plant in San Francisco Bay as protection against future power shortages. That 95-megawatt emergency powerplant could have provided enough power for 95,000 homes in the area. However, according to this news clip, the company abandoned its efforts because it was ``under fire from environmentalists and skeptical of winning regulatory approval. . . . '' The article also quoted the executive director of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission as saying, ``The commission was skeptical as to whether the emergency really existed.'' What a difference a few months makes. I wonder if anyone in San Francisco thinks there isn't an emergency now. In response to these tight margins between supply and demand, today I am reintroducing legislation that passed the Senate last Congress that will enhance the reliability of the wholesale transmission system. It is imperative that the transmission grid be operated as efficiently and reliably as possible during times when the margin between supply and demand is so tight. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the President urging him to issue an Executive order directing electricity conservation at all federal facilities throughout the twelve western states. Between federal office buildings, post offices, military bases, prisons, and other facilities, the federal government is among the largest consumers of electricity in the West. The Governors of Oregon and Washington are seeking 10 percent reductions in energy use at state facilities, and I believe this would be an appropriate goal for federal facilities as well. The federal government is also a major producer of electricity in the Western United States. Much of that generation is from hydroelectric facilities. I have expressed concern over the last several weeks that the Columbia and Snake River hydropower facilities not be operated in a manner that jeopardizes salmon recovery efforts in what is shaping up to be a poor water year in the Basin. However, there are many other federal generation facilities throughout the 12 western states that are interconnected by the high- voltage transmission system. Therefore, I asked that the Energy Department be directed to undertake an immediate review of all of these facilities to ensure they are providing as much power as possible during this crisis. It is not just California that needs additional generation, however. According to a recent study by the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Pacific Northwest faces a 25 percent chance of power shortages during this and coming winters. To reduce this probability to a more acceptable level of five percent, the Northwest needs nearly 3,000 megawatts of new generating resources, conservation, or short-term demand management. This report, however, assumed that all the other generation remained equal. Yet in recent years there have been calls to close the nuclear plant WNP2, with a capacity of 1,250 megawatts. Breaching the four lower Snake River dams, which I oppose, would reduce capacity by another 1,200 megawatts, enough power for Seattle. In addition, almost 12,000 megawatts of non-federal hydroelectric power in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and California, is up for relicensing between now and 2010. More stringent operating criteria could reduce the total amount of power available. New licenses will probably also reduce the operational flexibility of these facilities that makes hydropower so valuable in meeting daily peaks in energy demand. In the face of the numbers I just quoted, I believe it is the height of irresponsibility to even be discussing breaching the four lower Snake River dams. The Endangered Species Act was never intended to force us, as Americans, to dismantle the infrastructure that our parents and grandparents worked so hard to build. The Bush administration is going to have to clean up a huge mess that is not of their making. The assault on domestic energy production and the lack of a national energy strategy over the last eight years are finally coming home to roost. This nation is more dependent on foreign oil than at any time in its history, and crude oil prices are rising as foreign nations are reducing production. Natural gas prices have doubled in recent months. Electricity prices on the West Coast have skyrocketed, and they remain high in the Northeast. The previous administration started out wanting to tax energy production through a BTU tax, as a way to force Americans to conserve. When that wasn't enacted, the past administration went about a systematic assault on energy production. They went after coal-fired plants, nuclear plants, and hydroelectric plants. They opposed the siting of new natural gas pipelines and the expansion of oil refining capacity. They put millions of acres of land off-limits to oil, gas, and coal exploration. The economy, particularly on the west coast, is just beginning to feel the cumulative effects of these actions. The U.S. economy needs energy. It needs abundant, reasonably priced oil, gas and electricity if our economic prosperity is to continue. I want to thank the leadership of the Senate for efforts to craft an energy bill. I know that the Bush administration will work with the Congress to achieve more energy production and more conservation. But I say to my fellow Oregonians and Americans everywhere who care about this issue that we must reconnect the reality dots between the lives we live and the natural resources we demand. At the end of the day, power is not created by hitting a light switch. Food does not come from Safeway. Gasoline does not come from a filling station. These are all things we need, and we must be good stewards of the environment but also remember that using the land does not have to equal abusing the land. But those who advocate that all must be shut down are simply the ones who would visit this trauma that we are now seeing in California on the rest of us as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veteran's Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 145 and that the bill be referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. On Monday, at 2 p.m., the Senate will begin debate on the nomination of Gale Norton to be Secretary of the Interior. Tuesday morning, the Senate will conduct debate on the nomination of Elaine Chao to be Secretary of Labor and Governor Whitman to be Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. As a reminder to all Senators, the next rollcall votes will occur on Tuesday, January 30, beginning at 2:45 p.m. in a back-to-back sequence. Following those back-to-back votes, the Senate will then begin debate on the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I am pleased today to join Senators McConnell, Torricelli, Feinstein, and Allard in the introduction of the Election Reform Act. I think this last election made it abundantly clear that the time has come to streamline and update our voting system's outmoded technology and procedures. As my colleague Senator McConnell has pointed out, it is inexcusable that the world's most advanced democracy relies on voting systems designed shortly after the Second World War. The Election Reform Act will combine the functions of the Federal Election Commission's Election Clearinghouse and the Department of Defense Office of Voting Assistance, which facilitates voting by American civilians and servicemen overseas, into a single Election Administration Commission which will provide grants to states to modernize their voting procedures. It is important to note that the Commission will in no way usurp what is rightfully the responsibility of the states to determine the times, places and manner of holding elections. The Commission will study Federal, State, and local voting procedures and election administration and will develop, update and adopt every 4 years, voluntary engineering and procedural performance standards for voting systems. In addition, the Commission will engage in ongoing studies of procedures and make periodic recommendations on the best practices relating to voting technology and ballot design. Another very important responsibility of the Commission will be to advise States regarding compliance with the requirements of the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act and develop, update, and adopt voluntary procedures for enhancing voting methods for voters, including disabled voters. It is imperative that, as we pursue improvements in the administration of our elections, we also have the most up-to-date information about new technologies to enable the elderly and the disabled to vote with the same degree of privacy and dignity enjoyed by other citizens. Mr. President, I believe this legislation will go a long way toward restoring confidence in our voting systems, and I am hopeful that the Senate will pass the Election Reform Act very early in the new Congress.

Mr. SMITH of Oregon

Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank Mrs. Murray, the Senator from Washington, for her kind words on behalf of our colleague and friend, Senator Slade Gorton. I am filled with conflicting emotions this morning. It is easy for me to come to the floor of the Senate to sing the praises of Slade Gorton. It is hard for me to contemplate this place without him. As Senator Murray has detailed his history, I won't repeat it, but I do think it is significant that this good man comes from a family from New England but, like a delicious Washington apple, he is a product of Washington State. Slade often tells the story of Lewis and Clark coming down the Columbia River. They approached the Pacific on the Washington side. The first election that included minorities of African American, Indian descent, and female gender, took place on the shores of what we now know as Washington State. The decision before the party was whether to stay in Washington or whether to move to Oregon on the other side of the river. The vote was to move to Oregon. Slade has always used that story as an example that the voters are not always right. I have never shared the same conclusion with respect to that story, and I find it humbling to accede to the will of the majority in elections, as I do now, with the defeat of Slade Gorton for another term. It is a hard decision, nevertheless, for me. Slade was also given to say that mountains divide and rivers unite. Truly, the Columbia River is one of many marvelous things that Washington and Oregon share together. It is the thing which has made of Washingtonians and Oregonians good friends for so many years. It is, perhaps, the greatest thing that brought Slade Gorton and me together, a common interest in being good neighbors, a common interest in the values and uses of the river for both natural and human purposes. Oregon has lost a great friend at the end of the service of Slade Gorton. Time and again, I would appeal to Slade in his powerful position on Appropriations to help the people of my State with appropriations that mattered to farmers, to fishermen, to foresters. He was always there, always anxious to help, always anxious to provide money for salmon restoration and for things that make the lives of all in the Pacific Northwest better. Slade Gorton was the champion of many things, but I think he was the greatest champion for rural people. He knew that our prosperity, our standard of living, ultimately came from the responsible use of natural resources. So he stood by farmers. He stood by fishermen. He stood by those who logged. He stood by the miner. He fought for their jobs. He fought for them to have a place. But he was not just focused on their concerns. As Senator Murray has reminded us, Microsoft knew no greater champion on the floor of the Senate than Slade Gorton as he battled for this State's great interest in Microsoft's survival and success. So he was both high tech and farmer friendly. He was a man for all seasons for the Pacific Northwest and for his State of Washington. This morning, as I contemplated what I could say about him, a passage of scripture from the New Testament came to my mind that seemed to be, in my view, the bright way that I see Slade Gorton. After giving the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said: Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid; neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick, and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father, which is in heaven. Slade Gorton's light is very bright. I don't know of a brighter person in the Senate, a smarter person. I have referred to him before as the E.F. Hutton of the Senate: When he would speak, we would all listen. I know that is true in the Republican Conference. In his halting way, it was worth stopping whatever you were doing to listen to him, because what was said was worth remembering and to be valued and followed. So Slade's light, in my view, still burns brightly, and cannot be hid; it should still be utilized. I cannot predict how this Presidential election will turn out, but I do hope that if it should be President Bush, he will see that light as brightly as I do and utilize Slade in the service of our country still because our country needs him and he has so much more yet to give. Like Slade, I have known victory and defeat in running for the Senate. I had no greater friend when I first ran for the Senate, and by a margin nearly the one by which he has now lost, I also lost. I remember his letter so vividly because he had worked so hard for me. It came a few days after my defeat. He said how no defeat for a Senator's race had ever affected him as badly as mine, except the time he had lost once before. And it was a hard and bitter thing. But he admonished me to get up and to try again, as he had tried again. He admonished me to serve and to not hide my light under a bushel because he needed me, and the farmers, the fishermen, and the foresters of the Northwest needed me. I have the feeling they need me more now than ever with Slade's departure. He also said--and I will never forget it--he told me it probably upset his law partners in Seattle--that the worst day in the Senate is far better than the best day in the practice of law, which is another reason he labored so hard to come back and to serve. And it is a marvelous privilege to be here, to serve the people you love at home. Slade was right. I now know how he felt when he wrote that letter because I feel a great emptiness inside at the thought of his departure. But I know, as he knows, that in democracy you do not always get to win, but you always get your say. I hope the day will come, in a different forum, perhaps, when Slade Gorton will have his say again. Until then, I pray God's choicest blessings for Slade and Sally Gorton to sustain them in this difficult transition and to help all of us who remain behind to fill his very considerable shoe size as a Senator. I yield the floor.