[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 38 (Wednesday, April 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2447-S2451]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  NATIONAL LABORATORIES PARTNERSHIP IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 3047

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time between now 
and 2 p.m. is to be equally divided and controlled before a vote in 
relation to the Craig amendment No. 3047.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Idaho.

[[Page S2448]]

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
the State of Washington.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Ms. CANTWELL. Madam President, I rise today in support of the Craig 
amendment which would strike this bill's electricity title, with the 
exception of its reliability and the Federal Trade Commission related 
consumer protection provisions. I thank the Senator for offering this 
amendment.
  Because of the truly unique nature of the Northwest energy system--
and the historic Federal presence, predominance of public power and our 
hydroelectric base, to name a few distinguishing characteristics--I 
believe the electricity title of this legislation is possibly the 
single most important part of this bill to consumers in Washington 
State and, frankly, I believe the electricity title falls short of what 
is necessary to protect our Nation's consumers in this inevitable 
challenge that we have had in Washington State.
  What is at stake here, I believe--and I appreciate the chairman's 
efforts to try to craft a compromise electricity title. However, my 
position on the importance of consumer protection provisions has me 
concerned about the impact that this particular title will have on the 
State of Washington where the electricity market has gone awry.
  Consumers in my State are suffering from rate increases of up to 88 
percent on account of the market dysfunction that unfolded in the West 
last year. I believe the western electricity crisis was really 
precipitated by two factors: Obviously, California adopted a 
restructuring plan without adequate thought and deliberation, and the 
fact that FERC, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, signed off on 
it. Then FERC allowed generators in the West to charge market-based 
rates without first ensuring that those markets were sufficient in 
their competition and that they were adequately monitoring those 
markets over time.
  What that meant is that many industries in my State could not afford 
those high electricity prices, but nothing was being done to determine 
whether they were just and reasonable. Many people lost their jobs, and 
many children were not allowed to go to college because their families 
were without income. Many consumers paid very high electricity rates.
  I believe the provisions contained in the electricity title will do 
nothing to prevent another western electricity crisis from occurring. 
What is more, and what my colleagues should be concerned about, is that 
this is an electricity title that will do nothing to prevent FERC from 
making those same mistakes again in other regions.
  The electricity title contained in this bill restructures the entire 
utility industry without giving the Senate ample opportunity to 
consider the implications of this action. In fact, these very 
amendments were brought up on the floor without anyone knowing they 
were being brought up.
  This bill does not direct FERC to establish clear rules for when 
market rates can be charged, nor does it establish effective measures 
to police the market and provide needed remedies for any abuses or 
market imperfections. Again, these are very important issues for 
consumers.

  This electricity title repeals PUCHA, the Public Utility Company 
Holding Act, and moves merger approval authority from the Securities 
and Exchange Commission to FERC. In doing so, it weakens the burden of 
proof standard that companies must meet before they are allowed to 
merge.
  In the aftermath of everything that has occurred in California, 
everything that has occurred with Enron, why would we take one policy 
in which we have a standard by which the merger of companies and prices 
are impacted and remove that standard and make it a lesser degree? I do 
not believe that is in the interest of consumer protection.
  I support the Craig amendment to strike the electricity title because 
I believe these provisions do push the Northwest closer to a regional 
transmission organization. As some of my colleagues may know, FERC has 
repeatedly said the Northwest ought to join a westwide RTO. So, again, 
to Northwest consumers who have lost jobs because of the electricity 
crisis or are paying higher rates because of the electricity crisis who 
were forced under emergency order to send our power down to California 
and consequently paid a higher price, the fact that we might be 
hitching our fortunes to California does not sound like a very good 
issue for Washingtonians.
  I am very concerned because even FERC's own cost-benefit analysis 
suggests that consumers in the Northwest might suffer from the 
establishment of an RTO organization on a westwide basis.
  It is very important, although there are some other things such as 
the renewable portfolio standard which I think is really a subpar 
issue, and I think we need to improve on that, we think of the consumer 
interests. I support the Craig amendment, and I hope we will be able to 
change some of these issues and protect consumers in the future.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support for Senator 
Craig's amendment to strip the electricity title from the energy bill. 
I believe that addressing electricity in major legislation, at this 
time, would not be good for the Nation.
  The electricity title does not protect consumers the way it should. 
We have not fully evaluated the effects of this bill on energy 
consumers, particularly small consumers.
  I am uncomfortable with the direction of the electricity title in 
moving authority away from State regulators to the FERC.
  Last year, the west went through a terrible electricity crisis which 
consumers are still paying for and workers still remain out of work.
  Also, in this past year we saw the collapse of Enron.
  We are still trying to fully understand the causes and effects of 
these two events. Hearings are occurring and legal proceedings are 
ongoing. House and Senate committees as well as numerous Federal and 
local government agencies are still trying to find out what happened 
with Enron and why. Many people lost their jobs and many more people 
lost their savings and retirement accounts.
  I do not believe we should move forward on major electricity market 
restructuring legislation before we completely understand what 
happened. Enacting broad, far reaching electricity market restructuring 
legislation before we understand what occurred would be a big mistake.
  FERC has been forcing the development of Regional Transmission 
Organizations around the country in recent years. I have spoken with 
Chairman Wood and the other commissioners about my concern that their 
vision of RTOs may not fit with the structure of the Northwest 
electricity operations and market.
  As I have stated earlier FERC is already exercising its broad 
authority and the national electricity market is rapidly changing. 
Enron, a major electricity market participant, collapsed late last 
year. We are still trying to sort out what occurred.
  In the Pacific Northwest, energy isn't just a commodity. It is a 
resource that affects everything from our economy to our air, our 
water, agriculture, salmon recovery, and our quality of life.
  We should not make the same mistake California made, by restructuring 
the electricity markets, before all the issues have been thoroughly 
explored and resolved.
  Nearly everything I am hearing from people in my State is that they 
do not like this electricity title. They do not feel it is in their 
best interests. They are concerned about the direction FERC will take.
  I am also concerned that all market participants have not had an 
opportunity to review this legislation and have not had an opportunity 
to provide meaningful input. We need to make sure the legislation is 
thoroughly reviewed and discussed before we enact major legislation.
  This is a $200 billion industry. If bad legislation is passed, the 
consequences will be significant.
  The amendment is not perfect. I am unhappy to see the good provisions 
of the electricity title removed. I am particularly unhappy that the 
amendment does not promote renewable and diverse electricity sources. 
However, Senator Craig's amendment is preferable to the existing 
provisions in the electricity title.

[[Page S2449]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, allow me to state briefly that I will be 
voting against the amendment offered by Senator Craig. I do so not 
because I feel good about the existing provisions in the electricity 
title of this bill, but because I believe they are a starting point 
from which we ought to try to move forward.
  It is no secret that I am a strong supporter of renewable energy and 
a meaningful renewable energy production requirement. I admit to 
disappointment in the provision currently contained in this 
legislation. While it nominally contains a 10 percent renewable 
requirement, the various exemptions and carve-outs bring it down 
effectively to a roughly five percent requirement by the year 2020.
  This level of Federal commitment to renewable energy is painfully 
inadequate and I must express my concern and disappointment at this low 
number.
  I will also point out that, despite the assertions of my colleague 
from Alaska earlier today, a 10 percent requirement by the year 2020 
would not raise consumer energy costs. According to the Department of 
Energy, a 10 percent Federal renewable portfolio standard would reduce 
overall consumer energy costs by $3 billion per year by the year 2020.
  The figures the Senator from Alaska was referring to were the gross 
price of renewable energy, not the increased costs to consumers of 
using renewable energy versus other forms of energy. The relevant 
figure is not what the renewable energy itself will cost, but the 
increased costs, if any, to consumers, from using renewable energy. As 
I have stated, the Department of Energy says under a 10 percent 
renewable energy mandate, consumer costs will actually go down, 
compared to energy costs with no renewable energy mandate.
  So even a 10 percent renewable energy requirement will benefit 
consumers, and I hope we can get to a point where this Congress can 
actually implement that required level. However, while I am 
disappointed in the provision currently in the bill, I do believe it is 
a starting point, and one upon which I hope we can improve. Senator 
Craig's amendment to strike it entirely is not moving forward, but 
backsliding to where we are right now, which is nothing.
  As to other portions of the bill, I have long held the position that 
we should not move forward with repeal of PUHCA and PURPA without 
substantial consumer protections, and substantial new investments in 
renewable energy, including net metering, strong interconnection 
standards and substantial investments by Federal agencies in renewable 
energy. Again, I am disappointed in the provisions currently in the 
bill, but would hope that we could improve these provisions as the bill 
moves forward, rather that just dropping everything.
  For that reason, I will not support Senator Craig's amendment, but 
urge my colleagues to make the needed improvements in this bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I yield myself 3 minutes of the time 
that is reserved in opposition to the amendment.
  I understand the concerns that have been expressed by the Senator 
from Idaho. I understand the concerns expressed by the Senator from 
Washington. There is no question there is a lot of uncertainty about 
the future of electricity markets, and we are doing our best in this 
legislation on a bipartisan basis to point in a direction we know we 
need to move, a direction away from command and control and toward more 
of a market based system. I think all experts who have looked at it 
agree that is the general direction in which we ought to go.
  This legislation before us is the result of a lot of cooperation 
between myself, the Senator from Wyoming, other interested Members, 
and, of course, the administration as well since they have a vital 
interest in seeing the comprehensive bill we are considering, the 
energy bill, contain a title related to electricity that helps to 
ensure we have adequate electricity for our needs in the future, helps 
to ensure that the proper authority is there at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to ensure that mergers occur when consolidations 
occur, as they inevitably will, and that ratepayers are not harmed.
  We have a provision in the bill. We are taking the authority under 
the Public Utility Holding Company Act and its requirements, the ones 
we believe make good sense and protect consumers, and we are shifting 
that responsibility to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We are 
requiring them to ensure four things in order to approve a merger or an 
acquisition. No. 1, that captive ratepayers are not harmed by the 
acquisition or the merger; that the capacity of regulators to regulate 
is not in any way interfered with. That is another requirement. They 
are required to find there is no cost subsidy between the utility that 
is the subject of the merger and any other company so ratepayers are 
not being asked to subsidize any other business.
  Of course, they are also required to find that it is in the best 
interest to go ahead with this merger before they can approve a merger. 
We believe this will be more effective regulation, more effective 
oversight of this industry than we have had in the past. We believe 
this language is a modernization.
  Title II of the energy bill represents a modernizing of the law that 
is in the best interest of consumers and the best interest of our 
economy long term. I believe it is strongly supported by most of those 
who are interested in this issue and who have studied it.
  I compliment my colleague from Wyoming for his hard work on this 
issue, which has led us to the language we now have in the bill, which 
my friend from Idaho, Senator Craig, would have us strip out with his 
amendment. I hope Senators will vote against the amendment of the 
Senator from Idaho.
  I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of our time.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, may I inquire how much time is remaining 
on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. One minute twelve seconds.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to be supporting this 
amendment and I want to explain why. I am not happy with the part that 
strips out the renewables. We can put that back in. What I like about 
this amendment is that it really protects the States.
  I have great respect for my friend from New Mexico, but I have to 
tell him that California's experience with FERC has been nothing less 
than dismal. FERC is supposed to protect against unjust and 
unreasonable prices. They have done nothing to help us. They have been 
unfriendly to us, and the Senator is giving them more power. PUCHA, 
which is the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which the SEC is 
responsible for enforcing, is being repealed.
  I would rather keep the issue of mergers with the SEC any day of the 
week than give it over to FERC which has not shown itself in any way 
that I can tell to be particularly friendly to consumers.
  So I thank the Senator. I know everyone comes at this a little bit 
differently, but the bottom line is, on the whole I think this is a 
good amendment and I will be supporting it.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. The Senator 
from New Mexico controls the remainder of the time.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from 
Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
30 seconds to close.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I appreciate 
the chance we have had to work together. Certainly, it is interesting. 
I have a couple of things I want to say. First of all, regarding the 
comments about FERC, that is exactly the way

[[Page S2450]]

we are going, to remove some of the authority of FERC. This has nothing 
to do with California and Washington, which had their own problems, but 
it certainly reduces the authority of FERC and that is what we want to 
do.
  I have a letter from NARUC, the National Association of Regulatory 
Utility Commissioners. It came in when the bill was in its initial 
stage. They point out there is an admirable compromise between Federal 
and State jurisdictions, including the issues they can support, and 
then they suggested some other changes which exist in the current bill 
because of this.
  Utility mergers sections, they support that; electric reliability 
standards, they support that. They support the PUCHA substitute and the 
PURPA substitute, and the net metering and consumer protection 
subtitle. This is the National Association of Regulatory Utility 
Commissioners which is in favor of the changes that have been made and 
would be opposed to the Craig amendment.
  This is a letter from the Secretary of Energy and represents the 
position of the administration. It says:

       I am writing to express my support for the electricity 
     amendment package agreed to by the Senate last week following 
     bipartisan negotiations. . . . These negotiations, between 
     Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats, resulted in a fair, 
     balanced and bipartisan consensus regarding several 
     electricity provisions of the energy bill--a consensus that 
     the administration endorses. Those negotiations also set 
     forth a process to debate and vote on reliability and 
     renewable portfolio standard provisions where consensus could 
     not be reached. As we have discussed on several occasions, I 
     believe that an electricity title is a fundamental component 
     of comprehensive energy legislation. The administration has 
     repeatedly stressed that appropriate electricity legislation 
     is necessary to protect consumers, make wholesale power 
     markets more competitive, strengthen the transition grid, 
     increase electric supply and improve reliability. Any such 
     legislation must also balance these ends with consideration 
     to the role of States. These goals are reflected in the 
     electricity amendments agreed to by the Senate last week.

  I think certainly this is something on which we have come together. 
The fact is, we have not done anything in electricity for years. It is 
time to get it. Is it a complete answer? Absolutely not. We will have 
to come back and do some more with it. It is responsible to pass this 
bill now. The energy industry needs stability. Now is not the time to 
retreat. I urge opposition to the amendment.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, let me close by reminding my colleagues 
that reliability and consumer protection remain in this bill. 
Electrical advocacy groups, consumer groups, and utilities, some 18 
across the country, strongly support the amendment to take down the 
majority of this title. Why? Because it has not been reviewed. It has 
not been vetted. It has not been brought up to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission.
  What is your authority? How do you plan to use it? We are extending 
tremendous new authority to a central, Federal, regulatory body. That 
should not be where this Senate goes at this time. The House could not 
deal with it. It was much too frustrating and much too complicated. We 
did not deal with it in committee in an appropriate, comprehensive way.
  Yes, there have been deals made. Yes, there has been discussion. 
Let's step back, take a deep breath, and review this, as we should. I 
ask my colleagues to support me and the repeal of this title, leaving 
in place the reliability and the consumer protection.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The question is on agreeing to 
amendment No. 3047. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 62 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Allard
     Bennett
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Levin
     McCain
     Miller
     Murray
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Stabenow
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                                NAYS--67

     Akaka
     Allen
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Byrd
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Baucus
       
  The amendment (No. 3047) was rejected.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CRAIG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there are a couple of amendments that I 
believe are now ready to be considered and can be approved by all 
Senators. As I understand it, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. 
Dorgan, has one.
  I yield the floor to allow the Senator from North Dakota to talk 
about his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, for the information of colleagues, I will 
just be a matter of 2, 3 minutes. I intend to offer an amendment on 
behalf of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. We have worked on 
this amendment and have cleared it on both sides of the aisle.


                Amendment No. 3087 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Dakota [Mr. Dorgan], for himself and 
     Mr. Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 3087.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 11, strike lines 9 through 14, and insert the 
     following:
       ``(1) identifying the areas with the greatest energy 
     resource potential, and assessing future supply availability 
     and demand requirements.
       ``(2) planning, coordinating, and siting additional energy 
     infrastructure, including generating facilities, electric 
     transmission facilities, pipelines, refineries, and 
     distributed generation facilities to maximize the efficiency 
     of energy resources and infrastructure and meet regional 
     needs with the minimum adverse impacts on the environment.''.

  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, the amendment I offer today is on behalf 
of myself and Senator Murkowski from Alaska. It deals with the issue of 
siting future transmission infrastructure in areas that have the 
greatest energy resource potential to maximize energy efficiency. This 
amendment would have the Department of Energy provide technical 
assistance to the States and to regional organizations to help them 
identify areas with the greatest energy resource potential, and then 
coordinate the development of these energy resources and future 
facilities so that we can transmit this energy to the greatest extent 
possible.
  We have, in my State, for example, and in other areas of the country, 
the potential to develop additional energy resources, but we lack the 
facilities to transmit those resources.
  Our transmission capabilities are not keeping up with the ability to 
create this energy. We can address that in a few basic ways: by 
improving the planing, siting, and development of transmission 
infrastructure and corridors. We can also develop new transmission 
technologies that can increase

[[Page S2451]]

the efficiency and, in some cases, perhaps double or triple the 
capacity of existing transmission lines. One example of this type of 
technology is the composite conductor wire, which offers great promise.
  We would like the Department of Energy to provide the technical 
assistance to States and regional organizations that are interested in 
moving in these directions. We think there needs to be some 
opportunities made available to States and regional organizations to 
access technical assistance from the Department of Energy to help 
facilitate and achieve these goals. Our amendment will simply do that.
  I thank Senator Murkowski for working with me on the amendment. I 
think it is an amendment that will add to this bill and help us address 
some of the transmission issues as we plan for greater capabilities in 
the future to produce and to transmit energy through a grid across the 
country where energy is needed.
  Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on this amendment?
  If not, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3087.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3087) was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DORGAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                Amendment No. 3088 To Amendment No. 2917

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on 
behalf of Senator Conrad and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment is 
set aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman], for Mr. Conrad, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 3088.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To direct the Secretary of Energy to conduct an assessment of 
    wind energy resources and transmission capacity for wind energy)

       On page 64, on line 7, strike ``resource,'' and insert 
     ``resource, together with an identification of any barriers 
     to providing adequate transmission for remote sources of 
     renewable energy resources to current and emerging markets, 
     recommendations for removing or addressing such barriers, and 
     ways to provide access to the grid that do not unfairly 
     disadvantage renewable or other energy producers.''

  Mr. BINGMAN. Mr. President, this amendment relates to a renewable 
energy assessment.
  This amendment is to section 262 of amendment No. 2917. That section 
requires an annual resource assessment by the Secretary of Energy that 
reviews available assessments of renewable energy resources within the 
U.S. The report must contain an inventory of available amount and 
characteristics of renewable resources and such information as the 
Secretary believes would be useful in developing such resources, 
including terrain, population and load centers, location of resources 
and estimates of cost.
  The amendment adds to the report identification of barriers to 
providing adequate transmission, and recommendations for removing such 
barriers, and ways to provide access to the grid that do not unfairly 
disadvantage renewable resources.
  I think the amendment is agreeable to everyone. I urge the amendment 
be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the amendment is agreed to on this 
side.
  I want to also speak relative to Senator Dorgan's amendment. 
Obviously, we cosponsored that together. I am pleased it has been 
accepted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
3088.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 3088) was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.

                          ____________________