Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMAS. I have no objection to that.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be the following debate in relation to the listed amendments: Bingaman No. 1413, 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form; Bingaman No. 1418, 10 minutes equally divided in the usual form. I further ask consent that following the debate, the Senate proceed to a vote in relation to amendment No. 1413, to be followed by a vote on amendment No. 1418, to be followed by a vote in relation to the Feingold- Brownback amendment No. 1416, provided there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to each vote.

Mr. THOMAS. I wonder if it would be possible to propound this unanimous consent request.

Mr. THOMAS. The Senator from Wyoming was on the floor before he was, however.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I hope we are moving toward the opportunity to vote shortly. But, in the meantime, I cannot resist making a few comments. I don't see it at all the way the Senator from West Virginia has described it. Over the last couple of years, I have worked very hard to bring an Energy bill before the Senate. I believe we have an Energy bill before us that is very broad, that is very encompassing, and that is very balanced. That is what we have needed to do. We have been working now for 2\1/2\ years, and we generally have not been able to get over the obstacles to be able to get it completed, and I think I understand why. But it is time for us to decide: How important is it for us to have an energy policy? The first thing this administration came up with when it came into office was an energy policy with a direction, and we have been fooling around with it ever since. Last year, we couldn't even get it through the committee. We had to go right to the floor. We went to the conference committee and worked very hard. We did not succeed. But this is a balanced approach. We are talking about an opportunity to have conservation, which is one of the things we need to do in energy. We are talking about the opportunity to have alternative sources of energy, which we will come to over a period of time. I remember very much a number of years ago somebody coming to Casper, WY, talking about energy, saying: We have never run out of energy because we have always found a new source. Well, we probably will, but we need to be doing that in research. The bill involves research in a variety of different areas that relate to energy. What else could you do besides research? There is a very great emphasis on hydrogen in this administration and doing something that will move us to a different kind of energy opportunity. Coal might be the basis for that opportunity. It would be much more economical to move. Lots can happen in the future. What we are faced with doing in this bill relates to the fact that the energy industry has moved faster than we have moved. This is not a matter entirely of setting a future; it is a matter of catching up with what has already been done. And much of that is evidenced in the electrical industry. Years ago everything we did was designed to have an energy company and an electric company that had their own distribution. They did their own generating. It was all in one area. That is not the case anymore. Thirty percent of electrical energy is generated by merchant generators. That energy has to be moved from the generator to the market. It is quite a different situation. It is already there, yet we seem to resist talking about it. We seem to resist accepting it. We seem to resist making that an advantage for us rather than a problem, and we have an opportunity to do that. One of the other issues that is emphasized is domestic production, of course. It has already been pointed out that some 60 percent of oil comes from overseas. We are talking about the possibility of shortages of natural gas. I can tell you something: We have a lot of natural gas right here in this country, much of it in the west where I am from. We could be producing a great deal more if we had the policy to go ahead and do that, if we had the opportunity to have multiple use of lands to protect the environment and produce at the same time, to be able to have the transportation to move it to the market. These are the things that are there and available. That is what this bill is about. To suggest that this bill does not have any substance to it is simply not right. It is a good excuse if you don't want to vote for it. But the fact is, there is substance. The fact is, it does move us forward. The fact is, we need to move it on. We are talking now about an electric title, which I think is crucial. We were just upstairs talking about what energy does for jobs. Remember the economy started to turn down in the year 2000. We have been working at all kinds of things ever since. Here is one that has probably more of an immediate impact to jobs than anything else we could do, not only in production but, of course, it has an impact on all business activities. How important is electricity to us? Everything we do--travel, gasoline, natural gas, all these things. So I guess it is sort of frustrating to hear there is no basis to this, that we don't need to hurry doing this. Yet the fact is, it is probably one of the most needed things we have had for a number of years. And yet we continue to find excuses for not going forward. I hope we can move. We can complete this bill this week. We have already discussed almost all these items for a long time. It is time to move, and I hope we do. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been rescheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources; The hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 9, 2003, at 2:30 p.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. 808, to provide for expansion of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore; S. 1107, to enhance the recreational fee demonstration program for the National Park Service, and for other purposes; and H.R. 620, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to provide supplemental funding and other services that are necessary to assist the State of California or local educational agencies in California in providing educational services for students attending schools located within the Park. 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. Mr. President, I think the Senator raises an issue that we should discuss, but I have to tell you, it has been discussed, and there is a certain amount of balance that goes into this entire project. In other words, there are other parts of the bill which indicate that FERC should work with RTOs, for example, or should do some of the other things. Market design is a rather broad concept, and I think this amendment is not necessary. It is illogical to read this SMD delay to tell FERC it cannot do its duty. So when you broaden the whole thing to say you can't do anything, as this amendment implies in establishing a general market design, I suppose you might pick up some things that might be a market design and say you can't do that, when in the bill that is what we are seeking to cause them to do. I do agree perhaps there ought to be an effort made to clarify this language, as I think the Senator wants to do. And perhaps there is a way where we could do a colloquy, or do something to make it certain that it is not there to interfere with the other things we would want FERC to be doing; for instance, to issue rulemaking on market transparency or participant funding. We have a balance. And it is a little difficult to achieve that balance if we go with this very broad change. So I think, as it stands, we would have to oppose the amendment. But we encourage the Senator-- perhaps we could get together with our staffs and figure out a colloquy that would make it clear in some other fashion. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Reserving the right to object, I would like to make some more comments on this particular amendment following the remarks of Senator Durbin.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, let me say, first of all, I am happy we are moving forward with this amendment. This, of course, is a total effort to take last year's activities with relation to the electric title in the Energy bill and to redo it. Actually, we have been through this same argument before and we came up with a different recommendation. What we are seeking to do is cause our electric industry to be in a more modern status; to make changes in law and policy that reflect changes that have taken place and are taking place now in the energy industry. What we are trying to do here is deal with the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act of 1935. We have, of course, a Federal policy that has been in place for almost 65 years. The Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act is an outdated statute that imposes barriers to competition and discourages investment in transmission. This is key. What we are seeking to do here is to modernize this system so that because of the changes that have already taken place, for instance, 30 percent now the power being generated by merchant generators who do not do their distribution, then there has to be an opportunity to have transmission lines. The investment in those is very high, and we have to make some changes in terms of how capital is created to be able to do that. PUHCA limits geographic and product diversification and imposes many burdensome filing requirements. We are seeking, again, to see if we can't make these rules and these laws more simplified without having the expense of going through all these things. PUHCA is also a barrier to the formation of regional energy markets because arguably it could apply to the RTOs, the regional transmission organizations. This is again where we are moving. This is where we need to be. What we are seeking to do with this amendment is have the rules that applied since 1935 to an electric industry that is here in 2005, almost. So we are moving backward in a situation which we are seeking to modernize. That is really what it is all about. Repealing PUHCA would not preclude State and Federal regulators from protecting ratepayers. We have an apparatus in place in Government to do that. Access to books and records as well as rules regarding debt acquisition and accounting will protect investments on behalf of ratepayers. Also the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission will continue to protect against antitrust violations. The Securities and Exchange Commission, which currently overseas PUHCA, has recommended on a number of occasions that PUHCA be repealed with certain consumer protections transferred to FERC and State regulatory commissions, as noted. Certainly there will be market transparency. There will be antimanipulation and enforcement in place. There will be rules issued to establish a system to do that. It prohibits the filing of false information regarding the price of wholesale electricity and availability of transmission capacity. It prohibits round-trip trading which was mentioned as the reason for making this change. It prohibits round-trip trading. It expands who can file complaints and who is subject to FERC investigation. It increases the penalties. I guess the point is that there is substantial consumer protection in place. That is basically what we are seeking to do. I rise in opposition to the pending amendment which proposes to expand the FERC's merger review authority to include acquisition of generating facilities. Under the current law, electric utility mergers are already heavily regulated. In addition, FERC, the Department of Justice, and the Federal Trade Commission must review proposed mergers for their impact on competition. State regulators in affected States also review proposed mergers. Expanding FERC's authority to cover acquisition of generation facilities is unnecessary. Furthermore, this amendment preempts the States' ability to protect consumers. The Bingaman amendment requires FERC to review and approve any utility acquisition of a generation asset in excess of $10 million. Every time a utility wants to replace a major boil or steam turbine or install a new switchyard, they have to get approval. What does that have to do with protecting competition which is the reason why FERC needs the authority? Absolutely nothing. Let me explain why this amendment is unnecessary to protect consumers. Under existing law, FERC has jurisdiction over wholesale power rates and States have jurisdiction over retail electric rates. That means that an electric utility cannot pass through to consumers, either in wholesale electric rates or in retail electric rates, any cost without first having obtained FERC or other State public utility commission authorization to do so. So a utility that purchases a new boiler-- whether it is $1 million or $100 million--cannot pass through these costs without having to prove to the relevant regulator that the expenditure was prudent. If the regulator decides the expenditure is not prudent, then the utility cannot pass through the costs, and they are borne by the utility's stockholders and not its customers. That is good consumer protection practice. Let me explain why the pending amendment would actually interfere with State protection of consumers. Under existing Supreme Court doctrine, States may not deny the pass through of federally approved costs. The Supreme Court recently reiterated this principle just this summer in a June 2, 2003, decision, Entergy Louisiana versus Louisiana Public Service Commission. The Supreme Court held that FERC approved rates could not be second-guessed by State regulators. Accordingly, if, as the pending amendment proposes, we require FERC to approve and review utility acquisitions of powerplant utilities used for system supply to make retail sales, we are preempting the ability of a State public utility commission to review and approve--or deny--the utility's incurrence of those costs. I ask, why should we deny the State public utility commissions the ability to review utility costs that are being passed through in retail rates? How does that protect consumers? Will the FERC do a better job than our State commissions? This amendment is both unnecessary and unproductive. FERC will continue to review utility mergers to ensure that it is consistent with the public interest and will review proposed rates for the merged companies to ensure they are just and reasonable. That is FERC's appropriate role and we do not need to change it. Increasing FERC's merger authority to include generation-only facilities will only serve to impede efficient transactions without gaining consumer benefits. For these reasons, I think we should oppose the amendment, and I urge that we oppose the amendment. Again, in general terms, what we have done is packaged in this whole title, this electric title, the idea of what is happening in the electric system, where we want to be over time, a policy that will work in what is currently going on and what we hope to have happen in the future. To maintain and continue to go backward does not seem what we are appropriately here to do. We have gone through this whole thing. We have gone through witnesses in our committee. It has been approved. Certainly we ought to move forward with this package as it is conceived and dedicated, and we can improve the way we provide electric energy to everyone. But we have to continue to look forward and do things differently than we have done them in the past. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I take a moment to comment again on the pending amendment. It has been mentioned several times this was in our bill last year; that is true. I supported it; that is true. But we have to understand how we got in that situation. First of all, we had come to the floor without having the committee work on the bill at all last year. This is quite a different situation where we quietly and completely have gone through the bill. I also have to say my friend from New Mexico had quite a stronger statement and I had a less strong statement than what is in here. We agreed to a compromise. So it is not the way I would have done it had I had my way, but we wanted to move something. In any event, that is the way we came to have that language. We are talking about consumer protection. We get all tied up in some of these terms, but the fact is we are seeking to put authority there for someone to oversee. What we want to do, of course, is to have FERC do it without an expansion of authority. So we are saying in the language of the bill, no public utility shall, without first securing the order of the commission authorizing it to do so, sell, lease, or otherwise dispose of facilities; to merge or consolidate, directly or indirectly, such facilities or any part thereof; purchase, acquire, take any security over $10 million. It is very clear. That is what we do under the bill as it now is drafted. Then we go on to say in evaluating the transaction on the applications and so on, the Commission will adequately protect consumer interests, will be consistent with competitive wholesale markets . . . will not impair the ability of the Commission or the ability of a State commission having jurisdiction following the completion of the transaction over any public utility that is a party to the transaction or an associate company of any party to the transaction . . . That is what we say in the bill. . . . will not impair the financial integrity of any public utility that is a party to the transaction or an associate company of any party to the transaction, and Finally: . . . satisfies such other criteria as the Commission considers consistent with the public interest. So what we do is give the direction to the Commission to do the very thing that we are talking about, and that is to ensure that mergers are fair to consumers. That is what this whole area is about. It has been drafted carefully to be in that form. I think it would be a mistake for us to adopt any changes in that when we have what we need for the protection of consumers, something we have agreed to, something that is part of a modernization effort. We should not change that by an amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an op-ed article from the Government Executive Magazine.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Very well. I have no objection.

Mr. THOMAS. I think, while we are waiting, I would like to review again some of the general concepts that are in the bill. We have talked some, of course, and will continue all week, to talk about energy. That is what we are focused on. Unfortunately, we seem to be held up moving forward. However, that is not always a new thing on Mondays. I would like to briefly comment on what we hope will be the pending amendment, the electric title, but there is much more to the bill than that, of course. I would like to comment on what I think generally are the titles and the highlights of the Energy bill. Title I is on oil and gas. It does a lot. No. 1, it permanently authorizes this strategic petroleum reserve, the reserve held by the Government in case there are crises. This will permanently authorize that strategic reserve. It provides for production incentives for marginal wells. We find in Wyoming, where we have had oil production for a good many years, when marginal wells get down to having low production they become uneconomic to produce. Yet the accumulation of all the production from small producing wells is substantial. This provides for incentives to encourage continued production--done mostly by taxes. Royalty relief for deepwater production, that is exactly the same kind of thing. They can be in the gulf, for example. They are sometimes more expensive, but a great opportunity for more energy production. That is part of it as well, incentives for those kinds of wells. Streamlining permitting is also something that is very important. We have a great opportunity, particularly in the West, to produce more oil and gas. We have people willing to do that. One of the problems right now in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, where they are having a substantial amount of production on coal bed methane, which is a new process, it is taking an excessive amount of time to get permitting to do that. Therefore, the production has not gone on as it might. So there are efforts to streamline the permitting for critical energy corridors. I have to also add it is not done to the detriment of the environment. The same rules are there. It is simply that it can be done by the agencies much more quickly than it has been in the past. Another is the authorization for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. This would facilitate bringing 35 trillion cubic feet of gas to the lower States. There will be debate about how it is funded. Nevertheless, certainly over the long period of time a lot of the resources can come from there. Title II deals with coal. I mentioned this morning, coal is our largest supply of fossil fuels. Of course, one of the difficulties has been making it a clean air proposition. We are certainly looking for more research to do that. We are looking for more clear air regulation that will allow for the production of electricity with coal without damaging the air--and there is a good deal of dollars. The bill authorizes $2 billion for the deployment of clean air technology. There is a title on Indian energy. Many Indian reservations have substantial supplies of energy, coal, and gas and other supplies that have not been in production. Part of it is because of all the requirements they have had to go through, even more than on other Federal lands. They have to go through the BIA, as well as the Bureau of Land Management, as well as the State, and the result of that has been it has been higher cost to produce on reservations, so they have not produced. Therefore we have not had the production for all of us in the country and at the same time not had the economic assistance for the tribes, which is also very important. Nuclear energy is involved here, the permanent reauthorization of Price-Anderson, a liability insurance system. There would not be any nuclear plants without that assistance. The fact is, there have not been new nuclear plants for a good long time, despite the fact that in Illinois, for example, I think 28 percent--a good percentage of the electricity is produced by nuclear plants. It is a clean air deal. It is the best thing you can do in order to produce electricity and take care of the air. But, of course, we are all a little skeptical of nuclear and what to do with the waste. But there should be and will be research as to how to better produce. As we know, France, Norway, and the Scandinavian states do a great deal of nuclear production. They also have better means of taking care of nuclear wastes than we do here in the United States. So here is an opportunity to do that. Title V involves renewable energy. Here again, we have already heard about some of it today. There is a great deal of interest in renewable energy, whether it be wind energy or Sun energy, other kinds-- geothermal energy. All those things have great potential. The fact is, production by renewables only amounts to about 3 percent of total production in the country at this time, so it is not a major element, but it has the potential to be, and therefore we need to be continuing to work to provide an opportunity to make that more efficient. We have a considerable amount of wind energy in Wyoming. We have a lot of wind. As a matter of fact, the first windmill that was put up in Medicine Bow, WY, was an experiment a number of years ago. It had a huge propeller, and it blew away before it was able to be effective. Now they have changed them. Some are even cylindrical pipes, and the wind goes in and around. Perhaps those will be better over time. We need more research on doing that. Transportation, of course. We have already talked a great deal about CAFE standards. There will be more discussion about that. I don't think anyone is not agreeable to the idea that we ought to increase the standard of fuel consumption for automobiles, but we have to do it where the expectations of technology are such that you can do it, and it has to be in a way that does not impose excessive costs on everyone immediately. Again, that is a good one. This bill authorizes $1.8 billion for the present hydrogen fuel cell initiative, to develop clean, renewable hydrogen power for cars. I don't think there is any doubt that we can do it. As a matter of fact, there are hydrogen cars now. But there are some basic problems that we have not yet resolved. How do you make hydrogen? From where do you get it? Someone on the floor this morning was talking about doing it in space vehicles. The cost for space vehicles is quite different from that for my Ford Explorer. I think it will have to go a long way before that analogy fits in the cars you and I want to use. The other real issue is distribution. Think how many gasoline stations there are around where we drive our cars. I suppose you are going to have to have something similar to that for hydrogen, if that is going to happen. Will it happen? Sure. I think it is one of the things that will happen in the future. So that is here. Research and development, of course, in general is here. There is a good deal of authorization and funding authority there. Again, it is the kind of thing we need to work on. We have already talked this morning about the electric title, which is very important. We have not yet considered but will consider soon the tax incentives. Here again is the effort we are making to increase domestic production. That will be a result of the incentives that we put into place through taxes. The same is true with alternative energy for vehicles and fuel incentives. This will be done by tax incentives. Conservation efficiency, clean coal, and all of those things are very important. This is really a far-reaching bill. I think most people will agree with most aspects of it. If we can get it going and get it to the President soon, I think that is essential. I believe we are going to do some other things this afternoon, but I hope we continue moving back to energy. That is the challenge we have for this week. I hope we take full advantage of it. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I certainly agree with the Senator's point. That, of course, is one of the reasons we need to finish this bill. We talk all the time about restructuring. Frankly, the fact is, the electric industry and the suppliers have already changed, and we are behind times. This is not so much a matter of restructuring as it is to design a set of policies and a set of restrictions and constraints that fit with what is happening in the industry. Much of that a few years ago-- selling power three times and going through a number of people and different hands--did not happen. Now it is happening. Now we have to do something to catch up. That is part of what we are doing in this bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I am pleased that we are able to go ahead and talk about energy. I must say, I am not as pleased by the fact that we seem to be holding things up a bit. We have been on this issue now for 2 years. We have also, this year, already been on the Senate floor for 10 or 12 days on this issue. Last year, we were not able to complete the Energy bill because it was pulled out of committee. We did not go through the committee. This year, we went through the whole process in committee. We brought forth a bill that was approved by the committee. Now we find ourselves, however, held up because somebody objects to moving forward. Really, we have a week to do a job that deals with one of the most important bills we have before us. Frankly, it is discouraging when we find obstacles to moving forward simply because somebody has to wait until they get here on the Senate floor before an amendment can be offered. In any event, that is where we are. I object to the obstacles that are being put forward to the idea that we ought to move forward with this bill. In any event, let me talk just generally about the bill. The Senator from Florida has talked about some of the needs that are required. There is nothing more important to our economy, to employment, and to our families in this country than energy. We have an opportunity to deal with some of the problems that obstruct us from moving forward with energy. We seem to become all wrapped up in little regional political issues that keep us from accomplishing the goal of moving forward, and it is frustrating. But there is a need to have a policy that moves us forward. One of the things, of course, we hear about more than anything else, in terms of energy, is natural gas. We had our Federal Reserve Chairman here to talk about the need for gas supply and the potential shortage of gas we anticipate, partly because of the need for air-conditioning in the heat of summer and, certainly, the need for heat in the cold of winter. So natural gas is one of the things we have talked about the most. Quite frankly, there are some opportunities for increased domestic production of gas. The idea of importing gas is not, in my view, the best solution. We have an opportunity to have domestic production. We can do that. That is partly what this bill is about. We have provisions in the finance section of this bill that are incentives for production. We also find that we have a substantial amount of natural gas resources in the West. Much of it is on Federal land. We find ourselves, however, inhibited by the permitting process and the time it takes to do permitting in order to get gas on to the market. That is an area of potential. We can do that and, at the same time, protect the environment. We have already shown we can do that. There has to be a movement of gas from the source to the supplier. That requires pipelines. It is very clear that some of these things need to be done. This bill is a comprehensive and balanced bill. It deals with conservation. The Senator from Florida was talking about CAFE standards, but we have been through CAFE standards a number of times. There will be bills on the Senate floor that have to do with CAFE standards, and we will be supporting the movement of CAFE standards. This bill talks about alternative sources of energy, which is something we ought to be looking at, whether they be wind or sun or hydrogen. The President has in his budget proposal over $1 billion to do research on hydrogen. Well, it is great to talk about hydrogen and to talk about using those types of automobiles, but we are not ready for that. Not only do we not have the system to produce it, we do not have the distribution system. But we will have it, and it is something we ought to work on. It is already in the process; it isn't as if it is a brand-new idea. We are looking for some opportunities to use the coal supply to develop hydrogen, which would give us a fuel more easily moved about than coal. Hydrogen can be made from coal. So there is a good deal of attention in this bill for alternatives. We talk about conservation, alternatives, and also research and cleanliness in our energy supply. Again, coal is the largest fossil fuel supply we have in this country. We need to continue to work on clean coal. We need good air quality. There is a good deal of money in this bill for moving forward. One of the problems with our gas supply is, over the last number of years the 30 plants that have been developed for electric generation are all gas fired. On the other hand, coal is really, for a number of reasons, probably the best source. You can see that in prices, in the supply available. But still, because of not having a policy, we have used small gas plants close to the market and have used the wrong fuel. We need domestic production. Sixty percent of our oil is brought in from other places. We can do something about that. We can do it with domestic production and other uses. Certainly, this bill also addresses the modernization of the system of electricity, the modernization of the system of oil and gas. That is one of the most vital issues before us, to get a policy and a plan to move forward to make sure that energy is available, to the extent possible, domestically and that we don't depend on other countries for oil. Wyoming, of course, is a State that has a good deal of energy resources. A number of years ago, I attended a meeting. Someone was there from England saying: We have never run out of a fuel. That is interesting, isn't it? We started with wood. We moved to coal. We moved to others. But after a while, we always find some other fuel to go forward. That is part of the science and research that is in this bill, so that as we find shortages, as we find more efficiencies, we can move forward into other kinds of opportunities. I hope we can move forward and are not held up excessively to get the job done. It is here. We have a challenge to get it done this week. We have already discussed all these issues. We should be able to come to a decision on those issues that are still controversial, or, where there are different views, everyone who has a different view should be able to express that and vote on them when we have to. But we need to move forward. The idea that we are unable to get together to move seems to me to be inconsistent with the purpose of our being here. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. THOMAS. That is exactly what we are seeking to do, and that is what price transparency will help eliminate. I could not agree more. Also, there has been a good deal of discussion about CAFE standards. Obviously, that has to do with conservation. It has to do with being more efficient in our use of fuel. We will be talking about CAFE standards. In fact, there will be a number of different amendments offered on CAFE standards. We look forward to those amendments. We spent a good deal of time last year discussing three amendments, and, as a consequence, we should be able to discuss and dispose of these amendments more easily this year because we have already been through the debate. The Senate has already adopted an amendment by Senator Landrieu that will require the President to develop a plan to reduce domestic petroleum consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2013. A major reduction in oil consumption most likely will be achieved through reduction in the use of transportation fuels. As a result, the Landrieu amendment probably will focus on measuring fuel economy. That amendment may take the place of other amendments that will be offered. I think we will support an amendment offered by Senators Bond and Levin. Under that amendment, standards will be based on sound science and solid technical data. It is one thing to say, Gee, we would like to have increased mileage; we would like to make 40, 50 miles on SUVs, but the idea of using sound science and technical data is something we have to consider. This amendment we will support mandates the experts to set new CAFE numbers considering jobs, safety, technology, and other factors because there are factors that go into what we can do, what will be available to consumers, what will be possible in the marketplace. This amendment we will support has a commonsense approach which will not adversely affect employment, safety, and consumer choice. The Bond-Levin amendment is supported by the National Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Manufacturers Association, and the National Farm Bureau, and 30 other organizations. It is combined with tax incentives for advanced vehicle technologies. That provision, obviously, has to be in the bill. That is in the finance package. The amendment offers a sensible way to achieve fuel efficiency and reduce dependency on foreign oil. It does it in a way that will not hurt the economy, increase the cost of vehicles to consumers, or endanger lives by reducing the safety aspects. By comparison, there is another amendment that will increase the cost of new cars, trucks, and SUVs by as much as $1,200, according to the Energy Information Administration. It would limit consumer choice by forcing automakers to produce smaller vehicles that do not meet the consumers' needs; it will lead to the loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs of hard-working Americans; reduce economic growth by as much as $107 billion over 20 years and have adverse impacts. Again, we are faced with finding a goal we want to achieve and a sensible, legitimate way to reach that goal. We will continue talking about that issue. We will be looking at new fuels, such as hydrogen. As I said before, the President has already in his budget a tremendous amount of money for that kind of research. We will be looking for the opportunity to make sure there are positive opportunities to review how sales of energy are being made so that what happened in California will not happen again. We will be looking at ways to conserve energy, such as CAFE standards, without impeding the safety and the marketability of vehicles. So these are all things that go there. We are ready to talk about them. We have some plans to accommodate them and to achieve them, but, quite frankly, in order to do that, we have to get at it, get our amendments in, and take away some of the objections to moving forward so that we are not caught up in another sort of quiet filibuster. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I have no objection to the 3 minutes. I would like to ask unanimous consent that we be able to go ahead and speak on the electricity amendment even though we will not be able to offer it.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank my friend from North Dakota for joining in wanting to get our work done and pointing out the importance of doing that work. Certainly that is what we are here to do, and I hope we can continue to do our work. I agree with the point of view of the Senator from North Dakota in terms of transparency, antimanipulation, and enforcement. Actually, this subtitle deals with that issue. Certainly, there is no reason why we should not deal with it. It directs FERC to issue rules to establish an electronic information system to provide information on the availability and the price of wholesale energy and transmission services, to ensure such information is treated confidentially, and prohibit the filing of false information regarding the price of wholesale electricity and availability of capacity. These are some of the items that were used in the California/west coast experience. It prohibits round-trip trading, which was one of the issues Enron was most involved with apparently--at least that is what they were accused of doing. This subtitle expands who can file complaints in a case which is the subject of a FERC investigation. It deals with this whole question of what happened in California. It amends the Power Act to refund effective dates of filing. Many of these items in this chapter were designed to deal with the issue in California. I think it would be a mistake to seek to blame the California crisis solely on manipulation. There were a number of issues involved in the California case. California designed their own market rules, if we recall, when they insisted there be a limit on the price for retail but did not do so on wholesale. Those are issues that cannot continue. It was flawed. They also had a shortage of supply. They did not want to work on supply at all. They expected somebody else to bring in the supply, and it did not happen.

Mr. THOMAS. There is a letter from the Secretary of Energy: We support your substitute electricity amendment and believe it will effectively modernize our Nation's antiquated electricity laws. There is also a letter from Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois. There is another letter that talks about the amendment. It is signed by eight Senators who are looking more for the effects of a competitive wholesale electric system, and a standard market design. They are supporting what is done with respect to the standard market design. Another letter is from the American Public Power Association. It says: . . . I want to express our strong support for your substitute amendment . . . They are a very important player, of course, in this. The Large Public Power Council also says: . . . we support the electricity substitute, without modification . . . According to this group, we do not get into trying to make a number of changes now. The National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, which, of course, serves more than 36 million electric consumers, particularly for those of us who live in rural States, supports the passage of the carefully drafted Domenici amendment without modification. We also have a letter from the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. Remember that natural gas people have a real interest in this as well in terms of the generation of electric power. They say: We believe that the Energy Policy Act of 2003 strikes a fair balance between energy efficiency, environmental protection, and the need for increased energy resources. America's Oil and Gas Producers Independent Petroleum Association, the American Gas Association, all of these groups are in complete support of moving ahead with the amendment without modification. I think it is pretty impressive that all of these groups are in support, such as the North American Electric Reliability Council, which is the one that has to do with reliability. So these are some of the areas that are covered and are supported on this particular amendment. I know this is detailed and lengthy, but this is a very important aspect and a very important element. It is something that has been worked on for a couple of years, by both the committee and on the floor. This whole title having to do with the electricity part of energy has been redrafted and this institution will bring it together so that hopefully we can move forward with very few, if any, amendments, to this section. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS. Certainly.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, this morning the Senate has resumed consideration of S. 14, the Energy bill. The chairman and ranking member will continue to consider amendments during today's session. Schedule On behalf of the leader, I encourage Members who want to offer amendments to do so as early as possible this week. Those Members should contact the bill managers for an orderly consideration of those amendments. Under a previous agreement, at 5:20 p.m. the Senate shall proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Earl Yeakel to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Texas. The Senate will vote on the Yeakel nomination at 5:30. That will be the first rollcall vote of the day. Members should anticipate additional votes in relation to Energy amendments or any other items that can be cleared for action. In addition, the Senate will consider the trade amendments with Chile and Singapore. If all debate can be completed on those bills, the votes will also occur during today's session of the Senate. Today begins the final week prior to the August recess. Senators can, therefore, expect busy sessions with rollcall votes throughout each day and Members should schedule themselves accordingly.

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the following hearing has been postponed before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: The hearing to receive testimony on S. 808, S. 1107 and H.R. 620, originally scheduled on Tuesday, July 29, 2003 at 2:30 p.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC, will be rescheduled. For further information, please contact Tom Lillie at 202-224-5161 or Pete Lucero at 202-224-6293. committee on indian affairs