[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Page 4569]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            VOTE EXPLANATION

       [Reprint of Record statement of Friday, April 12, 2002]

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I submit this statement to explain 
my absence on Wednesday, April 10 on the rollcall votes regarding the 
amendments offered by the distinguished Senator from California. 
Senator Feinstein, and the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator 
Craig. Unfortunately, I was absent for medical reasons and was unable 
to vote.
  I wanted to express my support for Senator Feinstein's amendment and 
had I been here, my intention was to vote ``yes'' on the motion to 
invoke cloture on her energy derivatives amendment. I understand that 
this body specifically exempted over-the-counter trading in energy 
derivatives from anti-fraud, anti-manipulation and other oversight 
regulation by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission back in 2000. 
However, I believe the Enron collapse, and the dramatic energy price 
spikes we saw last year in California and the Northwest, including in 
my State of Montana, tell us that we should take a closer look at 
energy markets and make sure we are catching market manipulators. I was 
disappointed that cloture was not invoked on this amendment.
  I also wanted to express my support for Senator Craig's amendment, 
and had I been here, my intention was to vote for the Craig amendment 
to strike title II of S. 517. With so much uncertainty in today's 
energy markets. I was not convinced that the modified electricity 
restructuring provisions in S. 517 did enough to protect the best 
interests of consumers. This is a complicated area of Federal law, and 
I think the Senate needs more time to get it right. For that reason, I 
would have supported Senator Craig's amendment.

                          ____________________