Ron Wyden

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will be brief, but I want to just respond to several of the arguments made by my distinguished colleague. My colleague said, for example, that this is going to have real ramifications for the economic well-being of her State. The fact is, what the State of California has already done has already had a major economic impact on my State and on the people of the Pacific Northwest. Under very difficult circumstances we sent additional power to California which generated these glowing thank-you notes from my colleagues and various California public officials. So my colleague from California envisages some economic trouble in her State. We are already seeing it and it is compounded by the fact that we have been more than a good neighbor. What it is all about on the west coast, as my colleague from Nevada knows, is we have an interconnected power system. We have been more than a good neighbor, and we are suffering economic hardship as a result. My colleague also said that California is owed the opportunity. Those were her words: The State of California is owed the opportunity to work out this matter. There is no question in my mind that they should have the opportunity to work it out. But they should not get a free ride. They should have to be part of an effort, as Senator Boxer said this evening, to bring the parties together as we have sought to do with our very narrow amendment we offered this evening. Finally, my colleague says that somehow the amendment put together by Senator Smith and Senator Boxer and I, in her words, has launched an assault on the State of California. That is pretty incendiary oratory, in terms of this whole debate. But, again, I submit if there has been an assault that has been launched, it was what was done in the State of California. It was not something that came about because the Senators from Oregon, working with the Senator from California, tried to figure out a way to make sure there was a modest measure of protection for our constituents. It is not a proposal that moved Bonneville Power to the head of the line, not a proposal that gives our constituents a free ride, the way Southern California Edison seems to want, but something that ensures that we do get a fair shake. I am very hopeful my colleagues will see that there has been an effort on the part of the sponsors of this particular amendment. The first vote will be on the Smith amendment tomorrow morning at 10:30 or thereabouts. It is an amendment that was perfected by Senator Boxer so as to ensure that this would not create a greater opportunity for bankruptcy to take place. It was designed to make sure that the parties had a reason to negotiate. I fear that if this particular proposal goes down, this gives a green light to the private interests that are opposing this tonight, to know they basically got the votes on the floor of the Senate to work their will on any of these major issues. This is going to be a big vote, it seems to me. It is important for us in the Pacific Northwest. But for anybody who reads the Washington Post--and I put the article in the Record--the people who are opposing this amendment are folks who are sending billions of dollars overseas rather than trying to take care of business here at home. The lines are drawn with respect to who is with us and who is not. Those who are responsible to taxpayers and have to make Treasury payments in small California municipal utilities are with us. This is about one proposition, and one proposition only, and that is basic fairness for all concerned in dealing with a difficult issue. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of the Smith amendment that will come up in the morning. Mr. President, I yield the floor. amendment no. 27, as modified

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I reclaim my time briefly to make a few additional points on the matter of the California utilities and the Pacific Northwest getting repaid for the funds it sent California during their period of critical blackouts and other problems this winter. I agree completely with those Senators who have spoken tonight, that it is in everyone's interest to come up with an approach that avoids bankruptcy. I think that is an area of widespread agreement. Senator Smith and I repeatedly have said to Senator Feinstein and others who have had reservations about our approach that we would be open to a wide variety of avenues in order to make sure our constituents get a fair shake and are repaid. For example, I would be happy this evening, or at another appropriate time before the vote, to accept a perfecting amendment that would give California a reasonable period of time to perfect this comprehensive approach that they are pursuing in order to make sure everyone is paid off. I think that is very reasonable, and I want to make it clear that Senator Smith and I have talked about that in discussions with various utilities, and a couple that oppose it. We made it clear we are open to giving California a reasonable period of time to put their agreement together. But, in effect, what these California utilities have said is that it is basically our way or the highway. That just doesn't pass the smell test in the Pacific Northwest and with these public entities that are having so much difficulty paying their bills. I wish just a few of those thank-you letters we got from California public officials had been accompanied by checks because the fact is that all over the State we are getting and have gotten these letters from California public officials thanking us, and now tonight we are hearing that we will be repaid for our good deeds by being told that we can't even get a fair shake in a bankruptcy proceeding. So this is unprecedented, Mr. President. There is no question about that. I am happy to yield to my colleague in a second because she has said, correctly so, that this is an unprecedented situation. But what I believe is unprecedented is that after State officials have botched the job, they would have the hutzpah to say to my constituents, just trust us; we hope everything works out. I am happy to yield to my colleague from California.

Mr. WYDEN. I say to my colleague that we are being asked to trust the people who essentially botched the job. And I look at Southern California Edison--my distinguished colleague read something from the Southern California Edison, and I opened my Washington Post recently and learned that the Southern California Edison sent $5 billion overseas. I have great respect for my colleague from California. I don't think she would have put together what California did in the first place. Where we disagree is that I cannot come to the floor of the Senate tonight and say that because I am fond of my colleague from California, California can, in effect, declare bankruptcy and not pay its bills. The Senator's colleague from California, Senator Boxer, said--I think very eloquently--she thought it was just plain fair. That is the way I see it. I think you are going to have important legislation come before the committee involving rate caps and other approaches. I am going to be working closely with you on those kinds of issues, and Senator Smith is as well. But if we now get stiffed, and if we are now told we can't even stand in line in a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding under a plan, I don't think that passes the basic test of fairness. That is why we are here tonight. The Senator has framed the issue on her side--Southern California Edison and several of those significant private parties who were intimately involved in botching this job. On our side: Senator Boxer, Senator Smith, and a variety of public entities who believe that, coming out of the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, you ought to have something--something--that says you are going to get repaid. I ask my colleague again tonight, if she were to offer a perfecting amendment to the one we discussed tonight saying we will give you a reasonable period of time to work out your plan, that is yet another olive branch which we have been trying to extend over the last couple of weeks that might allow the Senate to go forward and approve a measure of protection for my constituents while at the same time showing that I and other Westerners are going to bend over backwards to give you all a chance to put together your comprehensive approach.

Mr. WYDEN. Of course.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. I am baffled why it has been so difficult to set up a queue. I have an amendment with Senator Smith. I worked very closely with Senator Boxer to make some perfections on which she insisted. We are here to go with the queue so Senator Dodd's and Senator Schumer's interests are protected as well as others. Perhaps we could be enlightened what it will take to get a queue so a bipartisan amendment such as ours can go forward.

Mr. WYDEN. Absolutely.

Mr. WYDEN. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed.

Mr. WYDEN. I offer this bipartisan amendment tonight on behalf of my colleague from Oregon, Senator Smith, from the Pacific Northwest. It was perfected in close consultation with Senator Boxer because of the importance of this matter to Senator Boxer's California constituents. As all of our colleagues know, during the California energy crisis a number of regions of this country have tried to assist. In the Pacific Northwest we believe we have been more than a good neighbor. Bonneville Power and other governmental agencies up and down the west coast have repeatedly shifted power to California to help out at critical times. Various California public officials have thanked profusely the Bonneville Power Administration and others for helping California avoid blackouts, help that was a real hardship for many in the Pacific Northwest because we have had a tough year, a low-water year. A variety of concerns were very much on the mind of those whom Senator Smith and I represent. To give an idea of how appreciative California public officials have been, I will read a letter Senator Feinstein wrote to Bonneville Power Administration recently. It reads: Dear Mr. Wright: I am writing to express my gratitude to Bonneville Power Administration for selling power to California yesterday. Yesterday my State nearly had an energy catastrophe. In a meeting at my office yesterday to discuss California's energy situation with Governor Davis, Secretary Richardson from the Department of Energy, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Hoecker, calls came into my office that within the hour, a rolling blackout could hit California and that the California Independent System Operator (ISO) would not be able to purchase the power necessary to ``keep the lights on.'' Twelve energy generators, marketers and utilities, mostly located outside of California, contacted the California ISO yesterday and indicated their reluctance to sell electricity into California without letters of credit from California's investor owned utilities, who they feared would not be able to pay for this power because of their economic circumstances. I am very grateful for BPA's cooperation! THANK YOU!

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, thank-you letters are certainly appreciated, but Bonneville Power still is in a position where they need to be repaid. As of now, Bonneville Power is owed more than $120 million by California, and various other public entities such as the Western Area Power Administration and various municipal utilities up and down the west coast are also owed funds. The fact is that they do not have shareholders as do the big, private California utilities. The people we are speaking for in this amendment do not have any stockholders to absorb the costs if they are not paid what they are owed. The public entities that would get a fair shake under this amendment would have to pass the costs on directly to the consumers if they were not in fact repaid. Our amendment makes nondischargeable in bankruptcy any debts under the Department of Energy emergency orders or otherwise owed for electric power sent by Federal, State, or local governmental agencies. This means these debts would have to be paid in full unless there was a determination by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that the rates charged in California for electric power were unjust and unreasonable. I want to make it very clear, because we have seen a lot of letters passed around, exactly what Senator Smith and I are saying in this bipartisan amendment. All we are saying in this amendment is that if you are in a chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding, you have to have a plan to pay the public back when the public has assisted you in these emergency situations. Let me repeat that. There is no preference given to anybody--nobody-- in this amendment. But it does say that instead of stiffing the people of the Pacific Northwest and some other public entities such as in the Western Power Administration that serves Montana and other areas, you have to have a plan in order to pay those folks back.

Mr. WYDEN. I am happy to yield to my friend from California. I want to make clear to her we very much appreciate her being involved because this is so important to her constituents. We tried to perfect it so as to address her legitimate concerns.

Mr. WYDEN. If I may reclaim my time, what I am saying is we will add language to the amendment that says the State of California would get a reasonable period of time to work out this comprehensive approach you have pushed for before any of this kicked in, before anything kicked in that would say the people of the Northwest at some point would get repaid. Senator Smith and I will go yet another mile to accommodate the constituents of the Senator from California and say let's pick a reasonable period of time. You all work to put together your agreement. We will work cooperatively with you, and if you accept that change, we can let the Senate go home before breakfast time tomorrow morning and let it get about its business.

Mr. WYDEN. If my colleague will let me reclaim my time, again, there is absolutely nothing in the four corners of this amendment that would give a preference to Bonneville Power and the other public entities involved. The fact is Bonneville and the other public entities would not get priority over claims of secured creditors, for example, because my colleague has been speaking about creditors and the utilities tonight, and Bonneville gets no preference. All we are saying is that coming out of bankruptcy, there has to be a plan to pay back government agencies. It does not say there has to be a plan to give the people of the Pacific Northwest first crack. It does not say there has to be a plan making Bonneville, again, a preferred creditor. It just says there must be a piece of paper that makes sure the people to whom you sent that thank-you letter, that really gracious thank-you letter where you thanked them in all capital letters--you said, ``Thank you, Pacific Northwest''--all we are saying is that at some point those people you said thank you to should have something that would indicate they are not going to get stiffed but will eventually get paid back. I hope overnight our staffs can work together on this point. You are right; we do have a philosophical difference, and it was expressed by Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer said she did not want the people of her State, good and caring people--my colleague knows I went to Stanford, so I know something about her State--she did not want the people of her State to be essentially scofflaws and not pay their bills. If I may engage my colleague briefly, I want to make clear that overnight we are anxious to work with you on, for example, the idea of giving you a reasonable period of time before this legislation would kick in, and perhaps my colleague has other ideas because over the last couple of weeks we have made it clear that we want to work with her on this. Senator Boxer made the point, and correctly so, that on the west coast ours is a power system that is interconnected. It is a grid that serves the people of the West. There is a tangible reason for us to work together. It does not create much confidence, nor build a lot of credibility, for us to come to the floor of the Senate and say: Southern California Edison, which sent $5 billion overseas is against what Senator Smith, Senator Boxer, and I want to do, and the people of the Pacific Northwest ought to trust them and others who botched the job in the first place to let it all work out.

Mr. WYDEN. I express again my appreciation to the Senator from California because we want to come up with something that will work for the whole west coast and not pit people against each other. I am happy to yield to the Senator at this time.

Mr. WYDEN. I think the Senator has stated it extremely well and put a very complicated, by anybody's calculation, and arcane subject into something resembling English. I really appreciate the Senator's explanation. I think the position the Senator has taken not only is correct, but it is very gutsy. We all know this is a divisive issue in many quarters. I want the public to know the reason we have nailed down the protection for those various public entities, such as those California municipalities, is because Senator Boxer stood up for them. I want it understood that those FERC provisions, again, in the name of fairness, came about because the Senator helped us put that language together. I think when one looks consistently at who is out on the floor of the Senate standing up for the consumer, the Senator has shown that again and again. I think the spirit the Senator has shown in working with us on this issue is exactly what it is going to take to bring folks together in the Senate and on the west coast to really address this issue in a comprehensive way for the long term. I thank the Senator and would be happy to yield to her for any other comments.

Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. WYDEN. Reserving the right to object for the purpose of asking my colleague a question, I want to make sure I understand my colleague. The first vote on the amendment involving this matter with Pacific Northwest and California would be on the Smith of Oregon perfecting amendment; is that correct?

Mr. WYDEN. If my colleague will allow me to reclaim my time to respond, that is not my first choice. My first choice was what we did with Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer worked very closely with us to narrow this amendment. In order to make sure we had the best possible response with respect to this threat that there could be a great run on the banks and the institutions of California, we narrowed this so it involves a few hundred million dollars out of $12 billion. In fact, there is a little irony here. The sum of money we are talking about all told is less than the Senator's staff initially indicated they could go along with, but I gather Southern California Edison and some of these other folks do not happen to agree. Our first choice is to have a very narrow amendment to make sure the people whom California public officials have been thanking get a fair shake. It is only because we are anxious to explore other options with you that we thought giving you a reasonable period of time might be helpful. We are prepared to take the consequences of an up-or-down vote on the Smith amendment. The choices are clear: Southern California Edison is not with the Smith-Boxer-Wyden amendment. We have established that. It has been read in letters tonight. Those who are with us are these small public entities--the Western Power Authority, Bonneville Power, small municipal utilities in California. They are with us. It sets a very bad precedent to say those organizations that are responsible to taxpayers can be stiffed through the bankruptcy process. I admire greatly my colleague from California who is here in this discussion tonight. I make it clear we are prepared to stay until all hours of the night toiling on this matter because one issue we both agree on is this is of enormous interest to our constituents--those you represent in California, those I represent in the Pacific Northwest. We have our door open to work with the Senator on other approaches. If that doesn't work, the choice is clear for colleagues tomorrow morning at 10:30. Senator Smith, Senator Boxer, and I have an approach that is narrow and we think will promote negotiations to avoid a bankruptcy proceeding. On the other side is Southern California Edison and a crowd shipping billions of dollars overseas when they ought to do their homework to correct a botched job in energy deregulation on the west coast in California. If my colleague from California wants to go back and forth some more tonight, we can do that. I have, with Senator Boxer and Senator Smith, made the principal points on our side, and unless my colleague from California wants to engage in further discussion, we can yield back, but I can't yield my time until we have had a chance to respond to any arguments the Senator has.

Mr. WYDEN. Clearly, I think west coast Senators may not agree on everything debated tonight, but I think all of us can agree it is very appropriate that Senator Carnahan get 5 minutes at this point.

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I will now resume consideration of the amendment I have offered with Senator Smith. I, too, want to praise Senator Carnahan for an excellent amendment. I am happy she spoke on it at this time. Amendment No. 78 Mr. President, just a couple of additional points. Again, I want to make it clear that nobody is going ahead of the line under this amendment that we have developed in close consultation with Senator Smith. I want to make it clear that all that happens is in chapter 11 you have to have a plan to repay the public. In providing for this review by the FERC, we are not in any way subjecting the Bonneville Power Administration and public entities to rate review by FERC. Rather, it would have rates for power traded or delivered in California subject to FERC review, to examine if they are unjust and unreasonable. It was a very tough proposition for folks in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere to send our power to California. It has been a tough year. At the bipartisan town meetings Senator Smith and I held earlier this year, again and again we heard from our constituents who were very irate--and understandably so--about being forced to send power to California. It doesn't seem to be fair--it is just not right--to say that all of those working families in the Pacific Northwest are going to be stiffed, that after thank-you letters have arrived, now somehow there could be a bankruptcy proceeding and the folks we represent just have to face the music and the extra cost. I urge my colleagues to prevent this unfair result by supporting the bipartisan amendment Senator Smith and I developed with Senator Boxer from California. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Oregon at this time. Amendment No. 95 to Amendment No. 78

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide enforceable consumer protections for airline passengers. The bill I introduce today is the result of a process that started over two years ago, when I first introduced bipartisan passenger rights legislation. Instead of enacting that legislation, Congress decided to give the airlines a year-and-a-half to improve customer service through voluntary plans. At the end of that time, the Department of Transportation Inspector General was to report to Congress on the airlines' progress. The Inspector General released his report last month. It is a carefully researched and balanced document, and it finds that, while the airlines have made progress in some areas, there are also significant continued shortcomings. In particular, in many cases passengers are still not receiving reliable and timely communications about flight delays, cancellations, and diversions. The report recommends a number of specific, reasonable steps that could be taken to improve the experience of the flying public. I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senators Hollings and Hutchison, for the bill they have introduced, which reflects the essence of the Inspector General's report. My bill is intended to complement and further the discussion that legislation has begun. My legislation closely tracks the findings and recommendations of the Inspector General's report. First, it features ``right-to-know'' provisions that require airlines to tell customers when a flight they are about to book a ticket on is chronically delayed or canceled, and to provide better information about overbooking, frequent flyer programs, and lost baggage. The bill also contains provisions to enhance and improve the enforcement of the airlines' customer service commitments, such as requirement that each airline incorporate its commitments into its binding contract of carriage. Finally, the bill calls on the Secretary of Transportation to review existing regulations to make sure airlines adhere to their commitments, and to encourage the establishment of a baseline standard of service for all airlines. The provisions of this bill are not radical, nor are they regulatory; they are basic reasonable steps based directly on the specific findings and recommendations of the Inspector General. Most importantly, they would create meaningful, enforceable protections for consumers in the areas where the Inspector General has identified ongoing problems. I am hopeful that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide enforceable consumer protections for airline passengers. The bill I introduce today is the result of a process that started over two years ago, when I first introduced bipartisan passenger rights legislation. Instead of enacting that legislation, Congress decided to give the airlines a year-and-a-half to improve customer service through voluntary plans. At the end of that time, the Department of Transportation Inspector General was to report to Congress on the airlines' progress. The Inspector General released his report last month. It is a carefully researched and balanced document, and it finds that, while the airlines have made progress in some areas, there are also significant continued shortcomings. In particular, in many cases passengers are still not receiving reliable and timely communications about flight delays, cancellations, and diversions. The report recommends a number of specific, reasonable steps that could be taken to improve the experience of the flying public. I want to commend the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator McCain, and Senators Hollings and Hutchison, for the bill they have introduced, which reflects the essence of the Inspector General's report. My bill is intended to complement and further the discussion that legislation has begun. My legislation closely tracks the findings and recommendations of the Inspector General's report. First, it features ``right-to-know'' provisions that require airlines to tell customers when a flight they are about to book a ticket on is chronically delayed or canceled, and to provide better information about overbooking, frequent flyer programs, and lost baggage. The bill also contains provisions to enhance and improve the enforcement of the airlines' customer service commitments, such as requirement that each airline incorporate its commitments into its binding contract of carriage. Finally, the bill calls on the Secretary of Transportation to review existing regulations to make sure airlines adhere to their commitments, and to encourage the establishment of a baseline standard of service for all airlines. The provisions of this bill are not radical, nor are they regulatory; they are basic reasonable steps based directly on the specific findings and recommendations of the Inspector General. Most importantly, they would create meaningful, enforceable protections for consumers in the areas where the Inspector General has identified ongoing problems. I am hopeful that my colleagues here in the Senate will join me in supporting this legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2001 with my friends and colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Senator Patty Murray from Washington. The Fort Clatsop Memorial marks the spot where Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and the Corps of Discovery spent 106 days during the winter of 1805. The bicentennial of their historic journey is fast approaching. It is estimated that over a quarter-million people will visit the memorial during the bicentennial years of 2003 though 2006. Despite this anticipated influx of visitors, the memorial is legally limited to be no larger than 130 acres. This legislation would authorize a boundary expansion of the memorial up to 1500 acres and will therefore help accommodate the increasing number of visitors expected during the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The bill also authorizes a study of the national significance of Station Camp, another Lewis and Clark stopping point in 1805, located in Washington State. Since the 1980s, the United States Park Service in Astoria, OR has been negotiating with Willamette Industries to acquire approximately 928 acres for the expansion of the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial. These acres are integral to the interpretation and enjoyment of the memorial's historic site. The Park Service and Willamette Industries have reached an agreement that will enable the Park Service to acquire this property. However, this legislation is necessary to authorize the expansion of the memorial's boundary before any additional lands can be acquired. The Park Service has targeted the expansion of the Fort Clatsop Memorial as one of its highest priorities. The Clatsop County Commission supports this legislation, as do the local landowners in and around the memorial. In addition, I have heard from the National Parks and Conservation Association NPCA, the Trust for Public Lands, and the Conservation Fund, all of whom support this effort to expand the Ft. Clatsop Memorial. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation because the protection of this important American historic area will enable us to illustrate the story of Oregon and America's western expansion for all who visit this special place. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WYDEN

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Fort Clatsop National Memorial Expansion Act of 2001 with my friends and colleagues, Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon and Senator Patty Murray from Washington. The Fort Clatsop Memorial marks the spot where Meriwether Lewis, William Clark, and the Corps of Discovery spent 106 days during the winter of 1805. The bicentennial of their historic journey is fast approaching. It is estimated that over a quarter-million people will visit the memorial during the bicentennial years of 2003 though 2006. Despite this anticipated influx of visitors, the memorial is legally limited to be no larger than 130 acres. This legislation would authorize a boundary expansion of the memorial up to 1500 acres and will therefore help accommodate the increasing number of visitors expected during the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial. The bill also authorizes a study of the national significance of Station Camp, another Lewis and Clark stopping point in 1805, located in Washington State. Since the 1980s, the United States Park Service in Astoria, OR has been negotiating with Willamette Industries to acquire approximately 928 acres for the expansion of the Ft. Clatsop National Memorial. These acres are integral to the interpretation and enjoyment of the memorial's historic site. The Park Service and Willamette Industries have reached an agreement that will enable the Park Service to acquire this property. However, this legislation is necessary to authorize the expansion of the memorial's boundary before any additional lands can be acquired. The Park Service has targeted the expansion of the Fort Clatsop Memorial as one of its highest priorities. The Clatsop County Commission supports this legislation, as do the local landowners in and around the memorial. In addition, I have heard from the National Parks and Conservation Association NPCA, the Trust for Public Lands, and the Conservation Fund, all of whom support this effort to expand the Ft. Clatsop Memorial. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this legislation because the protection of this important American historic area will enable us to illustrate the story of Oregon and America's western expansion for all who visit this special place. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.