Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we have been at this now for a couple of years. I have risen before a number of times and we are back again. I just want to urge the Senate to pass this Healthy Forest legislation and invest more in preventing deadly wildfires. The latest thing we have seen, of course, is in California. That was not unexpected. These woods had insect infestation. We have to do something. Many of us in the West are continuing to fight this. S. 1904 includes carefully crafted bipartisan language. If we oppose that, we are really not serious about reform. The amendments that weaken the appeal process, judicial review, NEPA requirements, would deprive the legislation of some of the very reforms that are needed that we have seen through the years in the West. I want to see us move forward. I think this is a commonsense approach. We have been at it a very long time. This is not even the first year we have been at it. I hope we can pass it and pass it right away. I support this legislation and yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. No, I am not. I wanted to speak in support of the legislation.

Mr. THOMAS. Yes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, in memory of the anniversary over the weekend of the death of our friend Paul Wellstone, I rise to reiterate my support for the mental health parity legislation on which he worked tirelessly. I am a proud original cosponsor of S. 486. The Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003, which was reintroduced this year by Senators Domenici and Kennedy in honor of Senator Paul Wellstone. This important legislation will provide people with a mental illness more access to treatment. Specifically, S. 846 prohibits a group health plan that offers mental health benefits from placing discriminatory caps, access limitations, financial requirements or other restrictions on treatment that are different from other medical and surgical benefits. In other words, S. 486 treats physical and mental health equally. This bill is modeled after the mental health benefits provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan, but provides a special exemption for small employers from such requirements. I have long advocated on behalf of our Nation's rural health care delivery system and mental health parity is a key step to increasing access to mental health services in rural areas. The Domenici-Kennedy bill is crucial to rural America because suicide rates among rural residents are twice the rate of urban areas, and 75 percent of the 518 nationally designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas are located in rural areas. The Senator Paul Wellstone Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act of 2003 must be passed by Congress as soon as possible, and I urge all my colleagues to work toward its enactment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I yield 2 more minutes.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, the Senate has just adopted an amendment which approves congressional oversight of public-private. It is a good thing for us to do. We urge the Senate to oppose the Mikulski amendment because it attempts to amend the problem by going back to the old A-76 process that we all agree was broken. I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment that is before us.

Mr. THOMAS. This is a Thomas-Voinovich amendment. We worked on this together. I will cover a little bit about what it does. This is a reporting requirement addressing a number of the concerns various Senators have had about competitive sourcing. The amendment does the following: It requires the Secretary of Interior to annually report on its competitive sourcing efforts, including the list of the total number of competitions completed, the list of the total number of competitions announced, the activities covered, the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees studied under the completed competition, the total number of full-time equivalent Federal employees being studied but not completed. It also asks for the incremental costs directly attributable to conducting the competitions, including the costs to paying outside consultants and estimated total anticipated savings or description of the improvements and service or performance derived from the competitions. Also, actual savings and improvements in our services or performance derived from the competition, the total projected number of full-time equivalent Federal employees covered by competitions scheduled to be announced for the next fiscal year. It requires a general description of how the competitive sourcing decisionmaking process of the Department of Interior is aligned with the strategic workforce plan of the Department. The amendment is a responsible measurement to allow additional accountability and transparency to public-private competitions. That is really what we have been concerned about. Two weeks ago the House overwhelmingly adopted a similar reporting requirement during consideration of the Treasury-Transportation appropriations bill. This amendment will give Congress additional oversight of competitive sourcing, unlike the Reid amendment that stopped it altogether. Competitive sourcing allows for tax dollars to be used more efficiently and improves agency efficiency. The provision would apply to all Federal agencies and not simply Interior. This is something we need. We talked a little bit about the changes brought about in the past. The fact is in the past there was nothing done to implement A-76. Now there is a plan. The plan will be reported. The plan will be transparent. I certainly urge all Senators to give it some consideration and hopefully to vote in favor of continuing to have competitive sourcing, continuing to strengthen the efficiency of the Government, continuing to give a chance for the private sector to participate. I yield now to my friend from Ohio.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I have a couple of points I had intended to make. It was brought up before that this system, as it exists now, doesn't require savings. That is not the case. You don't grant a contract unless there are going to be savings. They talked about no alternatives. That is what competition is all about, to take advantage of the alternatives. Someone mentioned management of contracts. That is not a brand new idea. A lot of contracting goes on around the world, particularly in the private sector, and you always have to manage those. So we have a real opportunity to strengthen competitive outsourcing here. That is what our amendment does. It doesn't go back to zero, but it strengthens it from where we are. We had a similar one before that the Senate rejected. I urge the Senate to reject this one as well. Whenever the other side is ready, we will yield back our time.

Mr. THOMAS. No, we are ready to vote.

Mr. THOMAS. Pardon me, I did not hear the Senator.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to take a little time to discuss this issue. Let me say at the beginning it is my intention to offer a second-degree amendment. We have been through this before. Actually it is the same thing. We are going back through it again. It is sort of interesting. You would think most people here as well as in the country would like to have an efficient government workforce. We would like to in instances which are potentially possible have the private sector involved in things. At the same time, we recognize there is a strong Federal employee group, and they will continue to be there. No one thinks that is all going to change. That is not the intention. The idea that all of this is going to change--the example used of people in the food service at the Naval Hospital. As a matter of fact, I was just there this morning. That isn't going to happen. They are there for other reasons, and those reasons will be considered. I think it is really too bad to take an issue like that--and there is a good basis for them being there--and attempt to use stories like that to make it sound unreasonable. The idea of competition, of course, has been around for a good long time. A-76 is not a brand new idea. It was passed during the Clinton administration. In this Congress we passed it, and continues to endorse the idea, certainly of competitive sourcing, streamlining Federal agencies. What is wrong with that? We hear all the time, we could do a better job with the energy, the ports we have, of course. Make Government more accountable to the taxpayers. That is a good idea, it seems to me. We use the Government's direct competition with the private sector, thereby ensuring competition. As a matter of fact, there is competition in these potential job changes. In most cases, there has been efficiency in the Government workforce, and the Government workforce continues to be there in a more efficient way. I have trouble finding a problem with that, unless it is totally political, which I suspect it perhaps is. The competitive source initiative is designed to improve Government performance and efficiency. That is what it is all about. When the Government competes with the private sector, we erode the local tax base; we drive up prices; we decrease performance by Federal agencies. By doing what we are talking about doing, we have cost savings. Whether or not the Federal workers stay in place or whether we do it through contract, we save money. That has been the history. Competition does that. Competition causes whoever is there, whether they be Federal or private, to find more efficient ways to do the job they are seeking to do. What is new about that? For all who have been in the private sector, that is the way we do things. There is nothing wrong with that. We are seeking to use the Center for Naval Analysis. Two independent groups, along with the General Accounting Office, have found through extensive research that competition sourcing reduces costs by about 30 percent regardless of who wins. The cost savings success stories include the printing of the fiscal year 2004 budget of the U.S. Government, the location in Washington, DC. Competition was completed in 2002, printing of four of the five volumes of the President's budget requested by Congress. Precompetition costs were $505,370; competition results, $387,000. It was retained in house. This reduction in costs by having outsourcing competition to do the same job ended up being done by Federal employees with a 23 percent savings. Those are the things we are talking about. It seems to me, and a lot of people believe, we have two issues. One is a practical, efficiency, cost saving issue. It is pretty well proven. The other is the philosophy of competition and of the use of the private sector where appropriate. I was chairman of the National Parks Subcommittee. The thought that we would replace rangers in the park has never been the idea. We are talking about the service jobs, the maintenance jobs. We are talking about those jobs, not park rangers. No one is talking about that. It is interesting to note, as the competition has taken place, there have been great savings: 2,500 positions have been reviewed under the competitive sourcing since 2001, and not 1 full-time Federal employee has been involuntarily replaced. These are the issues we are dealing with. We have been through this before. We went completely through this bill, and now we are back seeking to do it again. The Mikulski-Landrieu amendment would prevent agencies from taking advantage of recent revisions of OMB Circular A-76 to improve program performance and lower cost through the application of public-private competition. This amendment denies taxpayers the process the General Accounting Office believes would result in better transparency, increased savings, improved performance, and greater accountability. That is not bad stuff. Undue processes that have been shaped around the consensus of a supermajority of the public and private sector representatives: A commercial panel was convened by GAO to study the comprehensive sourcing. Why are some of the revisions to OMB Circular A-76 important? The rule makes important changes to level the playing field for public and private sector sources to offer the best services by eliminating the longstanding policy of prior revisions of the circular that discourage the Government from competing with the private sector even though the Government might be able to provide a better value. It discourages Government transportation as well. That is part of the problem we had. The faulty premise of the Mikulski amendment is based on a series of misplaced concerns that inaccurately suggest that a new private-public competition process provided by Circular A-76 is unfair. In fact, the revised circular promotes reasoned decisionmaking and increases opportunity for fair consideration of both in-house and private sector providers. The revised circular does not allow Federal employees to submit their best bid: It significantly expands Federal employees' opportunities and their capacity to serve the taxpayer by expressly requiring agencies to ensure their in-house providers have access to available resources, skilled manpower, funding, thereby ending the longstanding practice of direct conversions where agencies convert work from in house to private sector without considering the in-house capabilities, encouraging the in-house provider to offer more and more efficiently in house in order to compete with the bids. This is what it is all about. The revised circular, it is alleged on the other side of the aisle, does not require appreciable cost savings. It seeks to ensure cost- effective performance from both the private and public sectors and has succeeded in doing that. I cannot help but remember when we got this passed in the subcommittee in the Clinton administration, nothing happened. Now we are finally getting something in place to have competitive outsourcing and making it work and we have constant complaint about the opportunity to compete. It simply makes Government much more effective and much more efficient. As I pointed out, there has not been a loss of Federal employees despite the talk we hear from the other side of the aisle. That is an interesting fact. We will be talking about this for some time, I am sure. As I mentioned, we will probably have a second-degree amendment to be offered later. I hope we can continue to provide the opportunity for this Government to be more efficient, for this Government to be able to compete with the outside private sector--that is where most people are, in the private sector--to have an opportunity to participate in those jobs that are appropriate and noninherently governmental. That is the direction we are taking. I hope we can continue to get some facts out and not get carried away by the kind of emotion of people being let out of their jobs without any opportunity because that is absolutely not the case. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been scheduled before the subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, October 30, 2003 at 10 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1241, to establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site in the State of New York, and for other purposes; S. 1364, to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to authorize the payment of expenses after the death of certain Federal employees in the State of Alaska; S. 1433, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in implementing cultural heritage, conservation, and recreational activities in the Connecticut River watershed of the State of New Hampshire and Vermont; S. 1462, to adjust the boundary of the Cumberland Island Wilderness, to authorize tours of the Cumberland Island National Seashore, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at (202) 224-5161 or Pete Lucero at (202) 224-6293.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I will take the remainder of our time to talk a little bit about jobs, an issue that has been highest on our agenda on this side of the aisle for a good long time, and continues to be. First, I have to react a little bit to some of the comments that were made earlier about moving forward. I am very frustrated that each bill brought to this floor is slowed down either by objection or by a week's discussion and debate of amendments. Of course, everyone is entitled to offer amendments. But when you have to stay with a bill that is fairly simple and be there for a week and a half and then complain about not getting our jobs done, that is sort of ironic. Obviously, we have at least four things that need to be done in the next several weeks. We have to continue the supplemental bill to pay for our Armed Forces in Iraq as well as to get Iraq in a position to allow us to leave and take care of themselves. We do have appropriations left. We have six that are not done yet. So we do have to worry about that and move forward. We have the opportunity to do something with health care, particularly pharmaceuticals and Medicare, and we are in a position to do that. We also have an opportunity to do more with energy than we have done for a very long time. I recall, having been on the Energy Committee both this year and last year, when we were in conference. We had a conference last year, you recall, and never succeeded in getting the bill finished. So we have some real challenges. Frankly, I have become surprised at the kind of reaction we get off the floor, that almost every issue is designed to be critical of the Bush administration. What we ought to be doing is doing our job, to do the things that need to be done and that are pending for us to do and that we can do and will do some great things for the country. I would like to talk a little about jobs. Of course they are most important to all of us. There are some good signs in the job market. The Labor Department reported on October 3 that employment rose by 57,000 last month, the first increase since January. The unemployment rate held steady. So we seem to be having some signs of getting that job situation back where we would like it to be. We have had on our agenda a list of things that are designed to help create jobs and, as the Senator from Oregon indicated, the economy is what creates jobs--not the Government. But we can do things that help stimulate the economy which cause job growth. One of them that is most important, and that has already been talked about by my friend from Idaho, an issue that is very important to me, is energy security, the Energy bill. Energy security for this country means job security and the creation of jobs. The comprehensive Energy bill we are talking about here has been scored to have about 700,000 jobs that could be accentuated and could be encouraged by the passage of this bill. Many of the jobs will come from construction. Some have to do with the possibility of a pipeline in Alaska. Others have to do with domestic production. Of course, energy has a great deal to do with our whole business community, our whole business interest. Everyone relies on available and affordable energy. Certainly one of the things we have to continue to recall is we have become almost 60-percent dependent on foreign oil. We need to do something about that. We have seen our gas supply in great demand and the prices rise while at the same time we have resources of gas that can be made available. We need to encourage that development. We have an Energy bill that is quite balanced, it seems to me. We talk about research that will make coal more clean so we can use the coal, which is our largest fossil resource that we have available to us for electricity. We have renewables in there. We will continue to work on electric energy created by wind and make that more efficient. We have some things in there for conservation. We can make better use of our energy and certainly that ought to be important to us as well. In addition to that, and perhaps more important in the short term, is to increase domestic production. To do that, one of the opportunities is to make it economically possible for those who are developing it through some tax changes. Those seem to be held up now. We are hopeful we can move forward and get that job done. It is available for us to do immediately--this week, next week. We can get this done for the first time in a number of years. There are other items on the agenda that have to do with jobs. There is tort reform, asbestos litigation reform--which is available now to come to the floor. There are different views about that, of course. There is nothing wrong with that. But the fact is that would create new jobs by allowing companies to divert some of their dollars from litigation toward new investment, which creates jobs. The litigation defense costs are tied directly to offset expenditures relating to 138,000 jobs that could be replaced if we can do something about those distortions in the economy. Class action reform is here. In fact, we are going to vote on the opportunity to proceed with it tomorrow because it has been stopped by the other side of the aisle. Here again, class action litigation causes a good deal of confusion and uncertainty about the marketplace. Industries do not know whether their money is going to be available for expansion and investment or whether it is going to have to be saved for payments on those things. We have the workforce investment reauthorization. This will improve job training by focusing on core skills and encouraging effective cooperation among job training partners so people will be better prepared to take on the jobs that are available. Certainly what is happening in this economy is it is a more high-tech economy and more training is needed. We have the Foreign Competitiveness Act, which we are dealing with now in the Finance Committee, where the tax situation we have now has caused a WTO objection. But we can change that so it does fit into our foreign trade operation and at the same time continue to create more jobs and to have businesses do better. The Small Business Administration bill is there. That would help ensure that SBA programs will continue to provide products and services essential for small businesses. That is where most of our jobs are, particularly in a State such as mine, Wyoming. Almost all of our jobs are small businesses. So the SBA bill is certainly extremely important. The Homeland Investment Act is pending, too. That allows the Internal Revenue Code to change with the objective of encouraging reinvestment of foreign earnings in this country. You would be surprised at the amount of money that is involved, if we allowed companies that do some of their work overseas to take some of their profits home with a reasonable tax payment, and we would have more money for investment. So we have a lot of things to do. We have some great opportunities. Jobs certainly has to be the priority for all of us. The stock market is great. We love to see that grow up. But the fact is, jobs are the key to our success. We want to continue to improve there. Finally, let me say quickly that I certainly hope we can come out of the committee and finish our work on the supplemental to supply funding for our Armed Forces overseas and to do something in Iraq so we can move ahead. I had the occasion to be in Iraq and Afghanistan a week ago for a week. Certainly it was an interesting situation. There is a little different view there than what you hear from here. Certainly our troops have done an outstanding job, and continue to do an outstanding job not only on the war, not only on terrorism, but also helping to rebuild. We, obviously, have some continuing problems there with terrorism and that has to be handled, but we are moving toward having the Iraqis and their own police force moving into that. But my point is, I hope we can get over there and put Iraq more quickly in a position to take care of themselves so we can bring our troops home. In terms of overall expenditure, that of course would be our greatest saving. I yield the floor and yield back the remaining time we have in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask that the next 15 minutes be equally divided between the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Under the new circumstances, perhaps I could have 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in talking about the problems I guess particularly in the West, although not only in the West. When I was in high school, I lived near the Shoshone Forest in Cody, WY, and I would help the firefighters fight fires. I remember that so very well, particularly one mountain close to home. It was very steep. As the fire went up the rocks, it would loosen the rocks and they rolled down. Since that time, it has become even more of a problem. I always think about those who say we ought to leave things the way they are, and I think about the wild horses. If we would get too many wild horses, what would happen to them in the old days? They starved to death. We don't let that happen anymore. We have to keep the numbers down. The same is true with the forests. We are using the forests differently than we did in the past. More people live closer to the forests. People are using the forests differently. We have more insect problems to manage. We are talking about managing the resource. There will be areas, of course, where we will not have forest protection--on roadless areas and wilderness areas. But much of the forests are areas where there are many people all the time, where there are roads and buildings, and we have to do something different than we have been doing. Fires burn at naturally high temperatures and cause severe damage to the soil, watersheds, and air quality, as well as, of course, to the trees. Fires destroy habitat, including endangered species. It is our responsibility to protect the health and safety of the community in neighboring lands. There is a lot we must do to do a better job. In Wyoming--and we have not had as much fire as some other States--in the Shoshone Forest where I grew up, many of those trees are infected by insects. Yet only 1 percent of the corridor is available for any kind of treatment and care for these trees. In Big Horn National Forest, a fire burned for 3 weeks causing evacuation of dozens of cabins and loss of other facilities. Black Hills National Forest--interestingly enough, we had some agreements before that were limited to the Black Hills to do forest fighting, clearing, and so on. We ought to extend that to some of the other forests because we have had experience in that area. Grand Teton, of course. It is clear we need to have a program. Firefighting is extremely costly. It is expensive to suppress and control. It is much less expensive to seek to avoid fires. The Forest Service this year has already spent $1 billion in forest fighting. We passed nearly $700 million to cover the cost of the shortfall; otherwise, it had to come from other projects. We cannot continue to have these kinds of resources consumed by the fire. It has already been mentioned that the House has a bill and we have a bill and we will be taking up the differences. There are differences in view as to how different parts should be handled. Between the House and the Senate, there has been a compromise on almost all the issues that are important: administrative appeals and all the suits that take place. We have an agreement to cut those down, so instead of having to do studies for a year before something can be done, it can be done in 30 days. We have wildlife-urban interface, with half a mile around facilities in which more of this control will take place. We have the old-growth issues where there can be changes if old growth is in that interface close to buildings. There can be exemptions. I am most disappointed that, having talked about this issues for years, knowing the impact of not doing something, here we are with objections to moving forward when we have an opportunity to create some solutions to the problem that exists and will continue to exist. I hope we can do something this week. This is our chance to come together and pass a bill that will be usable. I hope we do that. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I had the honor to travel last week with the Senator to Iraq and to Afghanistan. Frankly, it was a very interesting meeting, one that makes us feel a little differently, being on the ground, than it is when we hear what we hear. I wish to make I think a fairly practical point, and that is that when we were there, obviously, we had a lot of security things to do. We have a lot of problems there. On the other hand, they have a plan that is being put into place for the schools, for the hospitals, for the government. They are making great progress. So we are talking here about $87 billion, $67 of which goes to support the troops. The other goes to try to get Iraq on its own feet. I have to suggest from a point of view of someone who is inclined not to want to spend a lot of money, if we really want to get them going on their own and get our troops out of there, the best way to do it is for us to take this money and to help them get on their feet. The biggest cost is maintaining our troops there. We can move that much more quickly if this $20 billion is put in the hands of our folks who are there now and we can move to get the Iraqis on their own feet and get our troops home more quickly than if we have to do this again to support the troops. I am talking about a very practical expenditure matter. I think we are much better off to go ahead and do this $20 billion as a grant, be able to have authority over how it is spent, and be able to get our troops home more quickly. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise today to express our Nation's deepest thanks and gratitude to a young man and his family from Casper, WY. On September 23rd, 2003, Cpt Robert L. Lucero was killed in the line of duty in Iraq. While searching a building in Tikrit, Captain Lucero was fatally wounded by an explosive device that took his life and injured another soldier. Captain Lucero was a member of the Wyoming National Guard, and was the very model of the citizen soldier. He was a vibrant young man who loved being outdoors and was an avid hunter and fisherman. He loved his family and his country. Captain Lucero had a profound sense of duty and felt a strict obligation to his country and his job as an American soldier. It is because of people such as Captain Lucero that we continue to live safe and secure. America's men and women who answer the call of service and wear our Nation's uniform deserve respect and recognition for the enormous burden that they willingly bear. Our people put everything on the line everyday, and because of these folks, our Nation remains free and strong in the face of danger. Captain Lucero is survived by his wife Sherry and his mother Lois Ann, as well as many family and friends. We way good bye to a son, a husband, a brother, a soldier, and an American. Our Nation pays its deepest respect to Cpt Robert L. Lucero for his courage, his love of country and his sacrifice, so that we may remain free. He was a hero in life and he remains a hero in death. All of Wyoming, and indeed the entire Nation was proud of him.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. We have a lot of work to do. We have six or seven appropriations bills that we have passed. We have 13 total to do. This is the last day of the fiscal year. We will have to pass a continuing resolution to go on into October, but we certainly need to continue to work on that and get that completed as soon as we can. It is very important we do that. There are several other bills, of course, that are pending that all of us feel strongly about. The Medicare bill is pending and we need to do something with pharmaceuticals. There is a great difference of opinion as to how we do that. The bottom line is that everybody knows we need to do something for Medicare, particularly pharmaceuticals, to make them available at a reasonable cost to as many people as we possibly can. So those issues are pending. I have a particular interest in energy because of my committees and because of where I live. Wyoming is an energy-production State. We look forward to being able to do more of that. We are in the process of an energy policy and had planned to get that completed this week. The House and the Senate have both passed energy bills. Most everyone knows we need an energy policy. We have not passed one for a good many years, and things have changed substantially. So we really need to deal with it. One of the issues I believe is important, that we are talking about, is an energy policy. We are not talking about every detail. We are not talking about everything tomorrow. We are talking about an energy policy that will give us some guidance into where we are 10, 15, 20 years from now. Obviously, things are going to change and indeed have changed. We have seen a number of the problems: the blackouts, the cost of gasoline, the shortage of natural gas, the things that happened in California. Those are part of what we are talking about, but we are also talking about the future. In this bill, we have things that have to do with renewable energy, finding ways to use wind energy, finding ways to use ethanol to extend the use of gas. We are talking about renewables. We are talking about doing some things with hydro and making that more accessible to much of the country. Obviously, one of the questions we have is how to move energy around the country. It has to do with the blackouts and has to do with California. We are talking about, how transmission can be operated, how to get new transmission incentives to invest in transmission costs. We find ourselves in a position of using more electricity, for example, but not really keeping up production to meet our demands. In some parts of the country--for instance, Wyoming--where we have lots of coal, we could generate a great deal of electricity, but then there has to be a way to move it to the market. Those have been very difficult things. We have to have research. I mentioned coal. We ought to have more research so we can ensure that coal is clean and we can have clean air as we generate that fossil resource that is the most abundant resource we have in fossil fuel. We need then, of course, in the shorter term, to continue to encourage production. We find ourselves almost 60 percent dependent on foreign oil. We have a good deal of oil in our country and we need to find ways to extract more of that, keeping in mind at the same time the protection of the environment. We can do that. There is ample evidence we can do that. So we have to deal with things such as incentives for unusual kinds of oil and gas that are more expensive to discover and to produce. We have to look at what we can do with the potential resources in Alaska, for example, whether it be having gas available from there, build a pipeline down so it is there, or whether we talk about ANWR. These are places where there are substantial sources of energy but they are not really available to us. These are some of the things we need to talk about. We had a bill last year in both Houses. We had a committee working on it last year. We were not able to produce a policy. This year, the same thing is happening. We passed something in the Senate; there was something else passed in the House. We need to put together the differences, and there are differences, quite a few in terms of the amount of ethanol we use and the subsidies that are there for ethanol. We have been talking about what to do about electricity and how much authority they have in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is controversial--how we can develop techniques, given regional differences in energy, without having the Federal Government in charge of everything we do. These are called regional transmission organizations, where the States can make the decisions within that for interstate movement. Then when you move between the RTOs, there has to be some Federal involvement. These are some problems that are not insurmountable. We can get them done. Of course, not everyone is going to agree on every detail, but that is not uncommon in the Senate. We have to give away some things. Some things are different in Alabama or Oregon, and we need to reconcile those differences and put together a national energy policy. That is our challenge. I mention that to emphasize that hopefully we will not be here forever. We will be able to adjourn this session, hopefully in November sometime--early November, if we are lucky, or later. We have a lot to do prior to that time, but we can do it if we will bring it to the floor, if we have our legitimate concerns voiced in legitimate debates, but not just hold up legislation for various political reasons. I think that makes us look inefficient and unaware of what we have to do, and we have a great deal to do. I believe our time has expired. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.