Russ Feingold: “I want to bring this debate to a close, but I want to quickly respond to a couple of comments from the Senators from New…”

“I want to bring this debate to a close, but I want to quickly respond to a couple of comments from the Senators from New Mexico and Idaho. When the Senator from New Mexico was making his comments he talked about the fact the State commissions, public service commissions, and others would be able to sort of take care of these kinds of problems that would exist in a post-PUHCA repeal era. I don't think that is an adequate answer. The fact is, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, in many cases these are interstate utility entities, and it is that very fact that has made it so difficult, prior to PUHCA, for there to be any appropriate regulation at all. So we do need some kind of appropriate law that homes in on this problem of utility holding companies and affiliates and the cross-subsidization problem that exists. That is the first point I want to make, that the State level is simply not going to do it. The second point relates to the comments of the Senator from Idaho. The premise of the remarks of the Senator is that somehow my amendment undoes the repeal of PUHCA. It does not do that. Our amendment is necessary and helpful and good for investors and consumers and ratepayers and small business, whether PUHCA is repealed or not. The argument is a red herring. The argument has no relationship to the issue of whether these provisions are needed.”