On the recordMarch 13, 2001
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.…
Source
govinfo.gov




