Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendments have been cleared on both sides. I will be glad to put in a quorum call until the Senator from Alaska has had a chance to review them. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a series of five amendments to the desk, and I ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Amendment No. 3097 To Amendment No. 2917

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, these are five amendments that have been cleared on both sides: one by Senator Kennedy, one by Senator Kerry, one by Senator Wellstone, one by Senator Conrad, and one by myself. I believe there is no objection to them. I urge the Senate to adopt them at this time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest we set the amendment aside to consider other amendments as Senators offer amendments. Before yielding the floor, the study called for in this amendment by the Senator from Illinois is very time limited. It is 180 days. The report has to be concluded within 180 days after the Commission is appointed. Then the Commission goes out of existence. As my colleague from Alaska pointed out, the maximum amount this could cost is $400,000 in expense funds that the Department of Energy would cover. There may be some way to improve the language, but I think it is a meritorious amendment and I hope we can adopt it. I thank the Senator from Illinois for offering it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Illinois on his amendment. I reviewed it. It deals with a very important set of issues about which we have all been concerned. His description of what this Commission would look at as the causes of large fluctuations and sharp spikes in prices, including insufficient inventories, supply disruptions, refinery capacity limits, insufficient infrastructure, regulatory failures, demand growth, reliance on imported supplies, insufficient availability of alternative energy sources, abuse of market power, market concentration, and other relevant market failures, are the exact kinds of issues we are trying to deal with in this comprehensive energy bill. Obviously, we need as much wisdom as we can find on these issues and how to address them. I believe this amendment would be a source of good advice to us, and I support the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is correct.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me make a couple of comments. I know we would not, of course, try to go to a vote on this matter without providing opportunity for Senator Murkowski and other Members to come to the floor and express their views. This is an issue about which I have spoken to Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton. I know they feel very strongly about it. It is the kind of issue that we address, as they are well aware, in the Energy Committee through specific legislation that is designed to provide a special level of protection for a particular area, a particular national park, a particular section of national forest; and I think that might be another alternative for them. I am not trying to discourage them from going ahead now if they wish to do that. Certainly, I don't intend to state a position on the bill on their amendment. I know some Members have expressed concern that we would not have the opportunity to consider this as legislation designating a particular area for special protection. That is another way to get to the same end result that they have proposed to get to with this amendment. So I mention that and I know that is something they might consider as an alternative to their amendment. The amendment is pending, and I understand other Members will come to the Chamber if the amendment remains pending and speak to it. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say in response to my colleague from Alaska, I agree with him. We are trying very hard to persuade Senators to come to the floor and offer their amendments. Of all the potential amendments that might be offered by various Senators, we are trying to determine which they actually feel obligated to offer. We have not been able to do that as yet. Maybe at a time when the Senator was not on the floor earlier today, I propounded a unanimous consent request that we specify a time or that we limit the amendments to those that are on our list. There was objection raised to that unanimous consent request. I suggest again that perhaps we could work together over the next hour or so to get that list pared down and then once again propound that unanimous consent request and see if we couldn't get it agreed to at that time. That would at least give us a finite list of amendments so that we could then know what is the potential universe of amendments. But it is very important that we get some other amendments up and vote on them this afternoon. I think Senators are on notice that we are anxious to do that. I look forward to working with my colleague to get the list pared down so we can complete this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me speak for a few minutes in opposition to this amendment by the Senator from Idaho. He stated at the beginning of his comments that there is a lot of uncertainty, a lot of question as to how various markets will evolve. I agree with that. There is uncertainty as we go forward. We are trying to craft legislation that will allow for that uncertainty but will move us in the direction we know we need to move. Why is it important that we retain this section, this title in the bill related to electricity? That is what the amendment offered by the Senator from Idaho purports to do; it purports to strip out of the bill the guts of that section, that title II of our energy bill. That would be a profound mistake for the Senate to go along with. It would be a profound mistake for the Congress. I hope very much his amendment will be defeated. Let me start by saying that the reason we believe--the reason I strongly believe and I believe many of us believe--that electricity needs to be addressed as part of a comprehensive energy bill is the same reason that the President gave us, and the Vice President when the Vice President issued the report, the energy plan for the country over a year ago now. That is, that our future supply of energy, the reliability of energy supplies in the future, the adequacy of energy supplies in the future, electricity supplies, are legitimately in question unless we do some things to change our basic laws in this regard. We need to recognize that this command and control approach to electricity generation, which we have relied upon for a century or more, is not going to meet our needs in the future. We need to recognize that a market-based approach makes more sense. We are moving in the direction of permitting that where appropriate. We did have the lights going out in California. That was over a year ago now. Some people have forgotten about it. Of course, our economy has been in a slow period. Folks are once again assuming we have plenty of electricity and our electricity transmission system is adequate to our needs, and there is no reason for us to be concerned with this issue. It would be a profound mistake to reach that conclusion. Nobody knows how hot it is going to get this summer. Nobody knows how much of a demand there will be for electricity, for air-conditioners in major cities. Nobody knows whether the transmission system we have today is adequate to those needs. What we are trying to do with this legislation is put in place some safeguards so that the transmission system is adequate, so that the additional generation of electricity that is going to be required for this country's economy in the years ahead will be there. One of the points the Senator from Idaho made is that we haven't had enough hearings on this issue. Let me say, I have been on the Energy Committee for some time, nearly 20 years. I can't think of anything on which we have had more hearings. Let me recount for the Senate the extent of the hearings we have had. Beginning in 1997, we had a hearing, a subcommittee hearing on competitive change in the electric power industry. That was on August 21, 1997. In 1998, we had an oversight hearing on the recent Midwest electricity price spikes. In 1999, we had a whole series of hearings, full committee hearings. First, we had one on electricity competition generally. Then we had hearings in June of 1999 on the Electric Utility Restructuring Empowerment and Competitiveness Act of 1999, which was legislation we had introduced at that point. We had hearings on the Federal Power Act amendments of 1999. We had hearings on the Comprehensive Electricity Competition Act of 1999. We had six full committee hearings, according to the records I have, on that set of issues in 1999. In the year 2000, we had an enormous number of hearings. My colleague, Senator Murkowski, was chairing those hearings. I attended as many of them as I could, but quite frankly, there were more than any Senator could plan to attend. We had hearings on all aspects of this issue. The Senator from Alaska referred to those as workshops so it wouldn't look as though we were having that many hearings on one subject, but we had well over 15 of these so-called workshops which took testimony, which gave Senators a chance to ask questions. In 2001, we had again a series of hearings, a great many hearings, quite frankly, at the full committee on this set of issues. In 2002, we have also had hearings related to the effect of Enron's collapse on energy markets, electric infrastructure, and investment needs. That was in August of 2001. We had a hearing, just as recently as February of this year, on the amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act. So we have had hearings. There is no lack of committee attention to this set of issues. That doesn't mean the issues have gotten simple; they have not. But I think we have a good framework here in this legislation for moving the country in the right direction. Let me just describe, generally, what the legislation now contains as we have amended it on the Senate floor. I believe there are some pro- consumer provisions in this legislation. I believe there are some pro- environment provisions. I believe there are provisions in here that will tend to ensure that we have a greater generation of electricity in the future. We have a renewable portfolio standard, which many of my colleagues have not favored. But that is in the bill. We have had three or four votes on that issue. The majority of the Senate clearly favors retaining that. We have strengthened Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority for market-based rates, including a stronger requirement that FERC act if rates are unjust or unreasonable. We have strengthened Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to scrutinize mergers and acquisitions in the electric utility industry, including expanding that authority to encompass electric utility-gas utility mergers, mergers of holding companies that own utilities, mergers of generation-only companies. FERC currently does not have authority over any of these consolidations. We strengthen the standards by which mergers must be approved to require that FERC determine that mergers are consistent with the public interest, that they do not adversely affect captive customers of utilities. That is a very important provision. We are putting into law a requirement that FERC make a finding that if a merger occurs, it will not adversely affect a captive customer of a utility. We believe that is an important new safeguard. We also require that FERC determine that the merger not impair the ability of regulators to regulate and not lead to any cross- subsidy between the utility and any other business. The latter three conditions are goals of regulation under the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which is current law. But here in this legislation we give those authorities to FERC, which we believe has a better track record, by far, of being a watchdog over the utility industry. The Public Utility Holding Company Act, which is the current law, is supposed to be administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and they have taken the position for the last 20 years that they did not want that authority, they did not believe they were the proper agency to have that authority. So we are transferring, essentially, that same responsibility over to FERC, and we are giving FERC the additional power it needs to actually enforce the provisions of that law--the pro-consumer provisions--to look out for ratepayers in a way that they really never have been in a practical way under the Public Utilities Holding Company Act. In addition to the renewable portfolio standard, there are a number of other provisions to give renewable energy a stronger role in the market. There is a Federal purchase requirement for renewable electricity, new standards for net metering and real-time pricing, and access to transmission by renewable resources. I believe very strongly that this bill moves in the right direction. There are a lot of things that this bill is accused of doing--this title to the energy bill--which in fact it does not do. It does not provide any vast new authority to the Federal Government. It does shift authority from the Securities and Exchange Commission to FERC, where we believe it can be much more effectively enforced. The market-based rate section doesn't grant new authority to FERC to order divestiture of facilities. That is a charge that has been made. On transmission, the provision makes sure that all transmitting utilities are under the same rules. We believe there ought to be a uniform set of rules for utilities that are transmitting energy from one part of the country to the other. This is a national economy we are in today, and we need a national transmission system if we are going to prosper in this national economy. The reliability section gives FERC some new authority. I am pleased to see that my friend from Idaho does agree that that should be included. The exact provisions of the reliability section--my friend from Wyoming, Senator Thomas, and I disagreed on that earlier, and he won that argument. The Senate agreed to his provisions relating to reliability. That is in the bill. But it is very important that those provisions stay in the bill and that we not strip out this section of the bill. I believe very strongly that Senator Craig's amendment would be a very major blow to our energy legislation. This is an issue that has been discussed, debated, and talked about at hearings in the Congress for about three Congresses now--three separate 2-year Congresses. The truth is that it is not an easy set of issues to get your arms around. The Senator from Wyoming, Mr. Thomas, and his staff, I, and my staff have worked hard to come up with a set of provisions that we believe does what should be done and moves the country in the right direction. We had strong support and assistance from the administration. Everybody likes to highlight the differences between Democrats and Republicans on energy issues. There are some legitimate, valid, and important differences on which we are going to have votes later this week, but this is not one of them. This is an area where we have had a very conscientious effort, on a bipartisan level, to work with the administration to come up with what we thought was good policy. I believe we have done that. I compliment the Senator from Wyoming for his leadership in this regard, in pulling together provisions that he could support and that others could support. So I believe very strongly that those provisions ought to remain in the bill. Senator Craig's amendment would delete those provisions, so it is an amendment I strongly oppose. I yield the floor, and I know my colleague from Wyoming is here to speak on this issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send another amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Conrad and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the remainder of our time to the Senator from Wyoming.

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. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., to hear testimony on ``Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Requiring and Supporting Work.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, from 9:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., in Dirksen 628 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 2:30 p.m., to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet for a hearing on the Reauthorization of the Museum and Library Services Act during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, April 10, 2002, at 10 a.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, to introduce legislation that will facilitate the flow of investment advice by providing businesses with a Federal income tax credit for small businesses of up to $30 per participant, $20 for larger businesses, for providing qualified independent investment advice. This legislation is a continuation of our efforts to help 401(k) participants better understand their investment options and enable them to make sound financial decisions. Last year, Senator Collins and I introduced S. 1677, ``The Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001'' that will create a safe harbor for employers to relieve them of liability for the selection and monitoring of qualified independent investment advisers. Combined, these pieces of legislation will facilitate the flow of investment advice to all plan participants regardless of their income or net worth. As introduced, this legislation will provide small businesses, as defined as having 50 employees or less, with a 60 percent tax credit on the first $50 of the cost associated with providing qualified independent investment advice. All other employers will be eligible for a 40 percent credit on the same amount of expenses. This legislation will limit the benefit for any plan sponsor to a total of $50,000 of credits per year under this provision. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in advancing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.