Craig Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002 with Senators Rockefeller, Jeffords, Specter, Carnahan, Snowe, and Cleland. This legislation, known as Medicare Subvention, will require the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, (CMS), to reimburse VA facilities for services provided to certain Medicare-eligible veterans. These servicemen and women have paid into the Medicare system over the course of their careers, just as every other American has done, but are prohibited from utilizing the program when treated at a VA facility. It is only fair that they be allowed to use their Medicare coverage in the private sector or at a VA facility. The number of veterans enrolled in the VA health system has more than doubled since 1996. In many VA facilities, Medicare-eligible veterans, called Priority 7 or Category C veterans, compose the largest increase in patient caseloads. At the VA facility in Cheyenne, WY, only 131 Priority 7 veterans were treated in fiscal year 1997. However, in fiscal year 2001 the same facility treated over 2,200 Priority 7 veterans. Clearly, the VA is experiencing substantial growth and even more obvious is the fact that veterans want to receive their health care services at a VA facility. Unfortunately, funding for the VA health care system has not kept pace. In my state, Medicare Subvention would expand access to services as most communities are designated primary care health professional shortage areas. Private sector physicians and other primary care providers are not as readily available as they are in other part of the country, which means that the VA is sometimes the only option. Specifically, the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002 establishes a three-year demonstration program at ten VA sites, three of which must be in rural areas. The Secretaries of VA and HHS may either choose Medicare+Choice or Preferred Provider Option model for the sites. These options give the Secretaries flexibility to determine which model works best for each particular site--ensuring veterans receive quality and timely care. The VA can provide Medicare covered services more efficiently and cost effectively than the private sector, which could potentially save the Medicare program money. Under the Preferred Provider Option, the VA would be reimbursed at 95 percent of the comparable private sector rate and 100 percent of the Medicare+Choice applicable rate, after excluding such targeted private hospital adjustments as Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital payments, Graduate Medical Education, Indirect Medical Education and capital-related costs. The VA will be responsible for continuing to pay for services provided to Medicare-eligible veterans who have been treated prior to fiscal year 1998. This ensures a good faith effort on the part of the VA, but will also allow the agency to immediately begin billing Medicare for services provided to Medicare-eligible veterans after fiscal year 1998. Additionally, this bill protects the Medicare Trust Fund by capping Medicare payments to the VA at $75 million a year for the duration of the three-year demonstration. Prior to the end of the demonstration, the Government Accounting Office, GAO, must conduct a thorough program evaluation. The GAO report ensures the demonstration met its goal of providing quality and cost effective care to our nation's veterans. The GAO is further required to provide specific recommendations to the Secretaries of VA and HHS on how best to expand Medicare Subvention nationwide. Veterans deserve quality, efficient and equitable health care treatment. Enactment of this legislation is the first step toward attaining that goal. I urge all my colleagues to consider cosponsoring the Medicare Equity for Veterans Act of 2002.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, recently we had a day called Tax Day. I think most of us thought a lot about taxes. We talked a lot about the process of filling in our tax forms and paying our taxes. I do not know about everyone else, but I came out of that with the renewed notion that we certainly need to take a look at making taxes more simple and that we need to simplify the Tax Code. The problem is, of course, that we are moving just exactly in the opposite way. We spent 7 or 8 years talking about simplification of the Tax Code, and every year it becomes less so. I hope we can address making the Tax Code simpler. The purpose of the Tax Code is to raise money in a fair way. The definition of a tax is a charge of money imposed by authority upon persons or property for public purposes. You have to have taxes. No one argues with that. But it is not a voluntary act. It is an imposition of authority upon people, and the imposition--in many cases, because of the process--is unreasonable. I am persuaded that the current Tax Code remains overly complicated, burdensome, and frustrating to the American taxpayer. I believe we find ourselves often more in the business of trying to manage behavior through taxes than we are of fairly raising money. If we have something we want done, and if someone wants to wear a red shirt and part their hair in the middle, we say: We will give you a tax deduction for doing that. All of that makes it much more complicated than in the past. It is now inefficient. It is inefficient in the allocation of financial resources for communities. Certainly, we are not able to supervise it and audit it very easily because it is so complicated. I am proud to have supported President Bush's tax relief bill last year. We made some effort to reduce the burden of taxes. Certainly, that doesn't help in terms of the complication that goes into filling out tax forms. One hundred and four million individuals and families will receive a tax reduction of about $1,000 from that action. That is good. Nearly 43 million married couples will receive an average deduction of $1,700. That is very good. Thirty-eight million filers with children will receive an average deduction of about $1,460. However, we certainly have not finished our work. Obviously, there needs to be an effort made to make permanent the inheritance tax, or the death tax. That has to be done. I think we need to simplify the Tax Code. We need to continue to do that. I know that is easy to say and much more difficult to do. We need incentives to make that happen. But the other side of that is that taxpayers spend, according to a report, over 6 billion hours filling out IRS forms. The estimated cost of compliance is close to $200 billion annually. That is a drain on resources. That should not happen. I hope we can take a basic look at where we want to be in terms of this issue. It is too complicated, it is too expensive, and it is hopeless to figure out how much we owe. That shouldn't have to be the case. We have worked on it and talked about it at least for a number of years, but we have not done much. Another important area in which we need to make substantive changes is health care. We talk about cost and who is going to pay for it. We need to give more thought to how to make substantive changes. The same is true with taxes. We ought to go back to the basics: Here is the amount of money that has to be raised. What is the fair way to do it? We need to do it in a simple way, and we need to sit down in a reasonable time and do it. Some have said Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury, said the tax laws are abominably full of absurdities. He is exactly right about that. We have about 17,000 pages in the code. Most of it, of course, comes from the Congress. Each day practically, we try to do something more with taxes to affect behavior. I think it is time we take a clean look at that and say the purpose of Tax Day is to support the necessary functions of government. It should be simpler for people to comply, and we ought to start with that premise and do it. I hope we can move forward to do that. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I will speak in morning business. There are a couple of issues before us. First of all, I urge that we move back as soon as possible--I understand we will at 2 o'clock--to our energy bill. Certainly, there is nothing more important before us now than the completion of that bill and being able to send it on to the President. Certainly, it is not going to have everything in it that everybody wanted. That is not a new idea. This is a bill that has been on the floor for 5 weeks. But it does have some good things in it. It has some basic energy policy materials that we have not had for a very long time. It has some of the things the President and Vice President had put forth. Unfortunately, some of those it does not. I was and am a supporter of ANWR. I think that could be done as a multiple-use project. I certainly agree with protecting the environment, as the Senator from Nevada was talking about, but I am also a great promoter of multiple use. Since 50 percent of my State belongs to the Federal Government, we have to be very certain that we have a chance to use it. So I hope we move forward with that. Upon its completion, I hope we take a look at trade promotion authority. There is probably nothing more important to us in terms of our economy and us being part of world trade. Billions of dollars move around this world every day. Yet for a number of years we have not authorized the President to go ahead with negotiations and to bring those negotiations back to the Congress, which is what this trade authority bill provides. We had a meeting this morning, and a press conference, talking about the agricultural aspect of foreign trade. Some are concerned about certain crops. But the bottom line is about more than a third, nearly 40 percent, of our agricultural production goes overseas. Our market here only consumes about 60 percent of what we produce, and that leaves 40 percent that has to go somewhere else, to new markets. To do that, we need a trade bill. That is where I think we really ought to go.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Alaska. I served with him on the Energy Committee for some time when he was chairman. I served closely with him in this idea of doing something to develop an energy policy in this country. I want to speak very briefly about our need for a balanced energy policy. Obviously, we are on ANWR here, of course, which is part of that total policy. That has been and should be the emphasis. It is only part of the policy, but a very important part of it. I am amazed at the opponents who talk about how we face these problems in the future, and we need to do something about it and refuse to move forward on one of the things we can most reasonably do. I come from a State where we have a good deal of production, where we have a great deal of public lands. I can tell you that multiple use of those lands is one of the things we really believe in and can do and have proven can be done. The lands I am talking about in Wyoming are really a little different from the ones in Alaska. I have visited there, and I can tell you that we can use those in multiple use. We can continue to have the uses that are there. We can use it for energy. It has been years since we have moved on an energy policy--years. It is time we do that, and it is time we do a balanced bill that has in it one of the things that are most clearly needed, and that is domestic production. I am amazed that particularly my friends from New England, who use most of the energy in this country and don't produce any, are very concerned about the fact that we are trying to use multiple use ideas in the rest of the country where we can help provide these kinds of resources. There is nothing more important. What is more important than our energy?

Mr. THOMAS. They are very aware of what we need to do. I urge we do it, including drilling in ANWR. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. No. I think the Senator from Massachusetts has had ample time to discuss this issue. One of the things we need to do is take a real look at this, of course. ANWR was set aside for future exploration, no question about that. ANWR, obviously, will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We are nearly 60-percent dependent on foreign oil in an unstable world such as we have now. ANWR is the largest onshore prospect for oil and gas. That is clear. It is clearly there. ANWR would require the toughest environmental standards ever imposed on energy production, and that goes back to this idea of having multiple use, to be able to do it with this 2,000-acre footprint and, at the same time, preserve that environment. We can do that. It creates jobs, of course, for the whole country and for Alaska, for the Native Americans who live there. It gives us a more affordable and reliable energy. That is the basis. Many of us have been working on energy for a very long time. We need to have that reliable source. We are going to look for new ways, and we will find new ways. I remember going to a meeting in Casper years ago, and someone, I think from Europe, said we would never run out of the fuel, and we will. We don't know. We need oil, and we need domestic oil. Mr. President, I am not going to take more time. We have had thousands of people come here--veterans, Jewish folks, labor unions.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital Access and Improvement Act of 2002, along with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, in addition to other distinguished colleagues with an interest in rural health care. This legislation reauthorizes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility program, known as the ``flex'' program, which has become a key component in stabilizing rural health care delivery networks. The ``flex'' program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to improve access to essential health care services through the establishment of Critical Access Hospitals, (CAHs), rural health networks and rural emergency medical services. To date, flex grants have provided assistance to 1,170 rural hospitals for technical assistance and education, 881 rural emergency medical services projects and 557 communities for needs assessment and community development activities. As a result, almost 600 hospitals that were on the verge of closing have been certified as Critical Access Hospitals. Over half of CAHs serve counties that are designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area. It is quite obvious that this innovative program works and merits continued congressional support. In my State of Wyoming, the South Big Horn County Hospital District has been certified as a Critical Access Hospital and several more are interested in converting to CAH status. Additionally, my State has used flex grant dollars to shore up rural emergency medical services in many of our frontier communities. The bill I am introducing today with several of my colleagues will continue to build upon the early success of this program by increasing the annual funding authorization from $25 million to $40 million. Additional funding is necessary to expand quality improvement initiatives within network development plans, enhance the development of rural emergency medical services and continue technical support to Critical Access Hospitals. I strongly urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important rural health care legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to introduce the Rural Hospital Access and Improvement Act of 2002, along with Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley, in addition to other distinguished colleagues with an interest in rural health care. This legislation reauthorizes the Medicare Rural Hospital Flexibility program, known as the ``flex'' program, which has become a key component in stabilizing rural health care delivery networks. The ``flex'' program was created in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 to improve access to essential health care services through the establishment of Critical Access Hospitals, (CAHs), rural health networks and rural emergency medical services. To date, flex grants have provided assistance to 1,170 rural hospitals for technical assistance and education, 881 rural emergency medical services projects and 557 communities for needs assessment and community development activities. As a result, almost 600 hospitals that were on the verge of closing have been certified as Critical Access Hospitals. Over half of CAHs serve counties that are designated as a Health Professional Shortage Area. It is quite obvious that this innovative program works and merits continued congressional support. In my State of Wyoming, the South Big Horn County Hospital District has been certified as a Critical Access Hospital and several more are interested in converting to CAH status. Additionally, my State has used flex grant dollars to shore up rural emergency medical services in many of our frontier communities. The bill I am introducing today with several of my colleagues will continue to build upon the early success of this program by increasing the annual funding authorization from $25 million to $40 million. Additional funding is necessary to expand quality improvement initiatives within network development plans, enhance the development of rural emergency medical services and continue technical support to Critical Access Hospitals. I strongly urge all my colleagues to cosponsor this important rural health care legislation.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I know we are close to the voting time. I recommend to all of my friends in the Senate that we approve Judge O'Brien. Certainly, no one has been as qualified, as my colleague pointed out. In the appointment process, we had a committee sort through the judge prospects in our State, and they came up with Judge O'Brien as the judge they thought would be best qualified. I thank the committee for moving this matter along. He is one of the few circuit judges who has been approved, and we certainly look forward to his approval by the full Senate. Again, I recommend him without any question to be a circuit court judge in the Tenth Circuit. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, today is a very proud day for the State of Wyoming and Terrence L. O'Brien. Just a moment ago, the full Senate confirmed Mr. O'Brien for Wyoming's vacant seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a vote of 98-0. As Wyoming's senior Senator, the responsibility of forwarding judicial nominees to the President is a job that I take very seriously. I am honored to have had the opportunity to assist in the filling of Wyoming's seat on the court. In May of 2001, Wyoming's previous judge on the Tenth Circuit, Wade Brorby, announced his move to senior status. Following that announcement, I quickly formed a selection committee in my home State to review qualified candidates. After an extensive process, the selection committee presented me with three candidates all with exceptional backgrounds to serve on the Tenth Circuit. Terrence O'Brien was one of the three candidates I forwarded to President Bush. On August 3, 2001, President Bush formally nominated Terrence O'Brien to the Tenth Circuit and the President's decision reaffirmed what I believed all along--that Judge O'Brien is an outstanding selection to fill Wyoming's seat on the court. For 20 years, 1980-2000, Mr. O'Brien served with distinction as a State district court judge in Wyoming. During his tenure he earned tremendous respect from those who argued cases before him. I cannot imagine a finer individual who will join other notable Wyoming jurists on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, including; Wade Brorby, James E. Barrett, John Jay Hickey, and John C. Pickett, who by the way, was Wyoming's first judge to sit on the Court. I also want to thank Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Leahy and fellow ranking Republican Senator Hatch for their work in reporting Mr. O'Brien's nomination. While our Federal judiciary current has 95 vacancies, today's confirmation of Terrence O'Brien is a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Senate's consideration of other article III U.S. Circuit and U.S. District Court judges. If the mark that Terrence O'Brien left in Wyoming as a district court judge is any indication of his resolve and sharp judgment--our Nation can expect great things from a man who's appreciation and respect for the rule of law are without question. Without reservation, I know that Mr. O'Brien will serve with honor and distinction on the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to discuss an issue that is very important to those of us in Wyoming and to all of us who have an interest in national parks; that is, the winter use of snow machines in Yellowstone Park and Grand Teton Park. As some of my colleagues may know, for a number of years we have had an opportunity in the wintertime for people to go into the park, to engage in and tour the park in individual snow machines on a route that has been set forth. Of course, there has been a good deal of talk about it over the last several years and contentious debate over how that should be handled. Some people believe we should not be in the park at all in the wintertime with snow machines. Others believe it ought to continue as it is. We ended up about a year ago before the last administration moved out with a rule put into place that in 2 years the individual use of snow machines would be outlawed and eliminated. That brought about a considerable response, particularly from people who live close to the park and have occasion to use it from time to time. The outcome was that we had an EIS underway. There was a suit brought, and we also passed in the Congress an extension of 1 year so we would have an opportunity for study. That has been underway, a supplemental EIS, to see how that could be handled and what could be done. Of course, there are at least two primary missions of a national park; that is, to preserve the resource on the one hand, and then to let the owners enjoy it on the other hand. So we have to find some balance between protecting the resource and allowing people to enter the park and use it. For a number of years, snow machines have been used. I don't think anyone suggests that they continue as they have in the past because there are some impacts both from noise and from exhaust. One of the things that has changed and can change are improvements made to the machines. Some of them now go to four-cycle engines which are quieter, less exhaust oriented, and have been proven that way. In Jackson, WY, every year they have a contest to see who can improve the machines more. That has been a successful endeavor. We are in the process now of doing that. I don't think anyone who is realistic suggests that we continue to do it as we have in the past. Certainly, we could apply some rules and regulations: No. 1, manage it; separate the cross-country skiers from the snow machines on the one hand. That can be done. I suspect if it were necessary, you could limit the number of passes that were made available. Sometimes the collection at Old Faithful gets pretty large. Nevertheless, that could be handled. There have been suggestions that we limit the use in the night when animals are perhaps on the move. One of the arguments is that it distresses and disturbs the buffalo and the elk. I have been through the park with a machine and have ridden from here to the table from a big buffalo who paid no attention to me and had his nose down in about 3 feet of snow pushing along trying to find a little grass. So I suppose there might be instances. But the fact is, they really don't disturb the wildlife. There has been now a regulation put into place, or an amendment that gives us another year to go through the supplemental EIS which is not yet completed. Then there would be, of course, probably about five alternatives that would be laid out in public. That is supposed to happen in November. We will have an opportunity to make some choices. I am just saying I hope we can make the changes that will protect the environment, can protect the environment. I am persuaded that can be done. At the same time, I hope we can allow people to continue to enjoy the park. Quite frankly, if you didn't have this opportunity with the snow machine, there would be very little use of the park in wintertime because it is large. And, of course, you can't ski clear across the whole area, or very few people can. That is in the process. I wanted to say I hope we do keep a couple of things in mind as we deal with our parks and our Federal lands. One is that, of course, we should take care of the environment. No. 2, people ought to have access to these lands. It is really too bad if we set them aside so that people can't enjoy them and have access to them. Another is to manage it so that it really doesn't have an impact. Much of that is the result of management, and, quite frankly, we have not done as much of that and some of the park officials would rather not have any. So, therefore, they have not made an effort to manage their existence very well. I hope we proceed on that and come out with a reasonable compromise that still allows access, and we can at the same time take care of the environment, both in Yellowstone and in Grand Teton, as well as other places where snow machines are used.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the chairman of our committee. I rise also to talk about this part of our energy bill, which I think is very important. In many ways, the energy portion of it touches more people than any other part. Of course, everybody relies on electricity. That is what we are talking about here. I appreciate the comments of my friend from Idaho, who expressed his concern. Many of the concerns he expressed, however, are the same concerns we worked together to try to remedy, and indeed we have made some changes that reflect the things about which the Senator from Idaho talked. I agree that the process is not quite the way I would have had it. I wish we would have had more time in committee. Nevertheless, we took a bill, and I think we have made it better and we have had it on the floor, and by no means is it perfect, nor does it complete all the work that needs to be done in the electrical area. But there is no way you are going to complete that now. We need to get started and to be moving. Further improvements can be made. I oppose the motion to strike, and even though the reliability-- which is important--would remain, I think it is very important that we continue to move forward with making some changes in our electric policy. It seems to me some of the things that have been talked about here are the very things we have sought to change. For example, in one of the sections there was originally major expansion of FERC's authority over State matters, no time limit on FERC review and action. In our bill, in the solutions we made, we reduced the expansion of FERC authority, raised the threshold of FERC authority from the review of asset sales from $1 million to $10 million, and moved more of the decisionmaking closer to the people. As to market-based rates, the concern in the original bill is it gave FERC broad authority to take any action to remedy ``unjust'' rates. We changed that. We said FERC can only fix those rates if it is found to be unjust, and there are six specific criteria and three general criteria. Again, it puts a bridle on FERC. There were many points the Senator from Idaho talked about that we indeed have moved toward doing, and that is moving more power and beginning to get ready for regional transmission organizations, RTOs, beginning to make the initial move toward having the necessary transmission. One of the things that has happened, and there have been great changes, is we basically deregulated generation. In the past, if a utility served an area around western Virginia, for example, that utility did the power generation and distribution. The State took care of that. We have changed it so there are many market generators who do not distribute but make it available to distributors, and it has helped reduce the price to consumers. That is a different situation, and we have to deal with it. Since 1978, Congress has been pursuing Federal electric policies that promote greater competition in wholesale power markets, provide open access to transmission grids, and encourage development of independent power producers that now build most of our powerplants. These policies were developed in a bipartisan manner and embraced by both Republican and Democratic Presidents. These policies have benefited consumers. Wholesale power prices have fallen 25 percent over the last 10 years. Nothing that happened over the past year changes that. We had problems, of course. We have gotten by those problems. Nothing has changed that. The electric industry faces tremendous uncertainty. Investment in new transmission is lagging, and powerplant cancellations in recent months raise serious concerns about the adequacy of future electricity supplies. This uncertainty is due largely to a prolonged transition to competitive electricity markets. This transition will not be complete until the Congress modernizes electricity laws to reflect changes in electricity markets since 1935. This is not a total remedy, of course, but this is a movement toward doing what has to be done. The time has come to modernize our electricity laws to recognize change in the electricity markets, in much the same way Congress passed legislation to modernize financial services 2 years ago. Congress has been grappling with this legislation for 6 years. We have held more than 100 hearings, as the Senator from New Mexico has pointed out. Six years is long enough. It is time for the Congress to act. The electricity provisions of S. 517 represent consensus. They are the product of many hours of negotiations between Senators and stakeholders. The Craig amendment would destroy this consensus and delay congressional action on this electricity legislation for years. It will take years to put it back together. I suggest the Craig amendment is a step backwards. The amendment eliminates consensus transmission open access provisions that represent a bipartisan compromise that will prevent discrimination, promote effective competition, protect small transmission owners such as municipal utilities and cooperatives, and respect States rights. The amendment preserves PUHCA, a law that is outdated and should be repealed. Every President since 1984 has supported PUHCA repeal. PUHCA repeal will provide FERC with ample authority to protect consumers against inappropriate mergers. State laws would also protect consumers of electricity. The amendment preserves PURPA, a law that has imposed billions of dollars of above-market costs to consumers. Repealing PURPA has been the consensus for years. We must not continue to mandate that utilities agree to high-cost power contracts. Keeping PURPA is contrary to protecting the consumers. The amendment limits FERC authority to review mergers. The amendment will make it harder to increase electricity supply by limiting authority to order interconnections. The amendment eliminates reforms that will accelerate refunds to consumers. I think it is true the electricity industry is facing more regulatory uncertainty now than ever before. Investment in new transmission is almost nonexistent, and investment in new electric power supplies has fallen sharply. For the first time last year, powerplant cancellations outpaced new starts. No one wants to invest in new transmission of powerplants until they know what the rules are going to be. The electricity industry is at an important crossroads. A lot of critical decisions must be made. Some of these decisions can be made by FERC; many can only be made by Congress. If the Craig amendment is adopted and Congress does not act on the electricity legislation, the transition to competitive markets will be prolonged, investment in new transmission and electricity supplies will fall sharply, electricity prices will be higher, and reliability will be lower. The electricity crisis in California and the West will probably recur. The President has called for Senate passage of electricity modernization to protect consumers and ensure reliability. The President's plan to produce more reliable, affordable, and environmentally clean energy is built on three core principles: The plan is comprehensive and forward looking. It utilizes 21st century technology to allow us to promote conservation and diversify our energy supplies. The plan will increase the quality of life of Americans by providing reliable energy and protecting the environment. We have before us an opportunity to start to move in that direction. Is it the total effort? Of course not, we will have to continue to work on it. We need to do that. We have made some forward movements. Of course, one of the major parts has been reliability. The other parts contribute a great deal to making it possible and urging people to invest in the infrastructure that has to be there, whether it be transmission or generation. I look forward to a time when we have RTOs, regional transmission organizations, that can come off an interstate highway movement of generated electricity so that we can indeed have a marketplace. I suggest we move forward with the bill as it is and not accept the Craig amendment. Now is not the time to retreat from the advances we have made in serving the American people with electric energy. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to say I agree with my friend. We do need to move forward. We have someone currently who is in the process. Hopefully, we can do it in a little later time. I observe also there are a whole list of amendments on both sides. This is not a partisan issue. We need to move forward. Further, let me comment a little on the remarks of the Senator from Alaska. I certainly agree with him. I am delighted he is in support of maintaining this electricity title. He does mention he thinks there needs to be some change in this renewable aspect which is in this title. I do not argue with that, but I certainly do not think that ought to keep us moving forward with our general approach in electricity. If there were to be an amendment--there are amendments filed that would deal with that specifically. We should do that. But that ought not be the criterion for us eliminating the things that will help us move forward with the electric title. I have had occasion in past years to work quite closely on electricity and energy. I am very anxious that we do move towards modernizing the system. For example, we need to move towards more transmission in a State such as Wyoming where we have the highest production of coal of any State in the country. Coal is one of our best sources, of course. However, if you have mine-mouth generation, which is the most efficient, then you have to have a way to get it to market. Clearly, there are things we need to do. But, clearly, we cannot wait. We have to get going and move on and begin to really deal with an issue that is difficult. I have been around here a while. I talked a lot about electricity. I have been on the committee. Also, as I said, I worked on this in the private sector. It is very complicated and for everything you seek to do, there are different views, and I understand that. But as the President said and the administration said, it is time to move forward and make some progress. There will be other ideas. There will be other bills. There will be other hearings. There will be other considerations. But we have the basis here for moving more of the authority to the States. We have the basis here for making it less complicated. We have the basis for moving forward toward making it a more modern system. By trying to do away with that title, we remove the progress we are making. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, on behalf of the floor leader, I object at this time.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I thank the Senator, and I appreciate the chance we have had to work together. Certainly, it is interesting. I have a couple of things I want to say. First of all, regarding the comments about FERC, that is exactly the way we are going, to remove some of the authority of FERC. This has nothing to do with California and Washington, which had their own problems, but it certainly reduces the authority of FERC and that is what we want to do. I have a letter from NARUC, the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners. It came in when the bill was in its initial stage. They point out there is an admirable compromise between Federal and State jurisdictions, including the issues they can support, and then they suggested some other changes which exist in the current bill because of this. Utility mergers sections, they support that; electric reliability standards, they support that. They support the PUCHA substitute and the PURPA substitute, and the net metering and consumer protection subtitle. This is the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners which is in favor of the changes that have been made and would be opposed to the Craig amendment. This is a letter from the Secretary of Energy and represents the position of the administration. It says: I am writing to express my support for the electricity amendment package agreed to by the Senate last week following bipartisan negotiations. . . . These negotiations, between Senate Republicans and Senate Democrats, resulted in a fair, balanced and bipartisan consensus regarding several electricity provisions of the energy bill--a consensus that the administration endorses. Those negotiations also set forth a process to debate and vote on reliability and renewable portfolio standard provisions where consensus could not be reached. As we have discussed on several occasions, I believe that an electricity title is a fundamental component of comprehensive energy legislation. The administration has repeatedly stressed that appropriate electricity legislation is necessary to protect consumers, make wholesale power markets more competitive, strengthen the transition grid, increase electric supply and improve reliability. Any such legislation must also balance these ends with consideration to the role of States. These goals are reflected in the electricity amendments agreed to by the Senate last week. I think certainly this is something on which we have come together. The fact is, we have not done anything in electricity for years. It is time to get it. Is it a complete answer? Absolutely not. We will have to come back and do some more with it. It is responsible to pass this bill now. The energy industry needs stability. Now is not the time to retreat. I urge opposition to the amendment.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, we are prepared--I guess at 11--to move back to the issue that has been before us now for 3 weeks, and that is energy policy. It is probably one of the most important issues that has been before the Congress in this session and one of the most important with which we will deal. Some important things have been with us for a very long time, of course, but now we find it even more important as we have national security issues, as we have a need for economic security, as the situation is changing in the Middle East that is even more pressing than it was before. One of the issues that has been with us all along is the fact we have not had an energy policy. We have not had a policy that has directed the efforts in the United States, which I think in itself is probably one of the most important things we can do. It is hard to make decisions in the interim when there is no policy that says where we want to be and where we want to go. We need a policy so these interim decisions can add toward reaching the goals we have in mind. We have a very broad policy before us. We have worked on it some in committee. Of course, the President and Vice President Cheney have worked on a policy as well, the House has passed an energy policy, and the Senate is the one which has not yet done the job we really need to do. I am very hopeful we will come to the snubbing post and get that done as soon as possible. A lot of things go into it. This has been covered, but I hope we are kind of reenergizing ourselves--no pun intended--as we come back from the recess to talk about a broad energy policy, one that modernizes and increases conservation. We all want to find ways to make better use of the energy we have, whether it be coal, oil, or electricity. We need to modernize and expand our energy infrastructure, and as things change we have to have an infrastructure, for instance in electricity, as we move towards now having more of a market segment in generation. If that is going to be done, then there needs to be a transmission system that moves the generation to the market. It is a new thing for us, and we do not have that. We have to have some diversity and talk about and maintain diversity in our supply so we begin to use renewables. We need to find new ways of doing that. I will always remember a meeting in Casper, WY, years ago when someone said we have never run out of a source of energy because we continue to find and refine new sources. We will continue to do that and indeed need to do so. We need to improve and accelerate our environmental protection, of course. Maybe most of all now, we need to strengthen our energy security. We have found ourselves, rightly or wrongly--I think probably it is not right--in a position of depending on foreign imports for almost 60 percent of our oil supply. Much of that oil supply has come from the Middle East, and continues to come from the Middle East, and we find that less secure than in the past. Certainly that dependency on imported oil changes the decisions we can make, and all these factors go into dealing with that. The one that probably deals with it most directly is the opportunity to increase domestic production, which has been one of the controversial areas on the energy bill. In fact, the energy bill was taken out of the committee. I happen to be on the Energy Committee. We did not have the opportunity to put together the bill. So the bill that has come to the Senate is basically very oriented toward conservation, toward renewables, toward most everything except an increase in domestic production. Now we have come to a point where we need to take a look at that. It is very clear how much more important that is right now than it was before. We see energy prices going up. We see much more uncertainty in the Middle East. There are some good things as well. We see some new suppliers. We see more imports coming from Russia, and hopefully some more stability there. At the same time we now see instability in Venezuela. We have seen instability recently in Iraq. So it becomes much more clear that over time we really have to deal with this question of becoming less reliant on imported energy. So that affects not only our ability to carry on what we are committed to do in the war on terrorism--obviously that is one that requires a great deal of energy--but I think it is also very important and vital to our efforts to regenerate and strengthen the economy. The economy cannot function without energy. I hope we can move more quickly in resolving the issues before Congress. The tax package has been completed by the Finance Committee. There are 150 amendments pending. Hopefully, we do not have to struggle through all of those. Obviously, the question of ANWR is out there. We need to deal with that. That could be perceived differently now than in the past because of continued pressure on the notion of imported oil. We have a great deal of work to develop more clean coal technology, as coal is one of the most plentiful domestic resources we have. We have an opportunity to become more efficient and effective in generating energy and electric energy. We dealt with that a year ago, particularly in California. Wyoming is the largest producer of coal. One of the real opportunities in coal is producing the low-sulfur clean coal, and transporting that energy to other places. We can do more. We have an opportunity to continue making nuclear energy important. For anyone interested in clean air, which we all are, nothing is cleaner in producing electricity than nuclear power. We have not figured out a way to deal with the waste. There is controversy on that. There are things we can do. We can find storage. Looking at what is done in Europe, they recycle from time to time. We can work those areas. There is much that needs to be done; there is much that people need to agree to do to move forward on those goals. We find ourselves tied up over some of the elements. I hope we come together and decide what it is we need to do and get on with it. I am hopeful we can move quickly, certainly to do the best we can. The House has already passed a bill and is ready to go to conference. We can reconcile the differences. The administration is anxious to have an energy policy, to have an energy bill passed, and is working with Congress to do something to make it work while making our economy and environment stronger. We have a lot of energy in our State. The idea that if you produce and have access to public lands for multiple use, it suddenly ruins the land, is not the case. We have seen over the years we can have multiple use. We can have production. We can have gas production. We can have oil production. We can continue to have a decent environment. We completed a study on a portion of land under consideration for wilderness in Wyoming called Jack Morrow Hills. One study showed there were operations there some time ago, and the natural evolution had changed it back to a natural place. We have to be careful. We have to use environmentally sound procedures and techniques. We can do that. We are committed to do that. I am hopeful we can move forward. We have had support from veterans, from organized labor, from women's groups, from the Hispanic and Jewish community, from Native Alaskans. Almost everyone has been here. I had the pleasure of working with veterans who were here promoting energy policy. I look forward to that. As we return to energy at 11 a.m., I hope our goal is to complete that as soon as possible and move on to other matters. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that an intern from our office, Steve Ripley, be granted the privilege of the floor for today.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam President, I ask that Senator Crapo and Senator Gordon Smith be added as sponsors, please.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise to address the pending amendment. The Senator from New Mexico cited a number of the people supporting his part of the bill, several of whom were companies, of course. Maybe the fact that the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners supports the amendment would be an interesting change. In terms of looking out for the public's interest, I would guess that is more likely to be the case--certainly the North American Electric Reliability Council. Again, there are letters on each one's desk that the administration supports this proposal. We are looking toward getting together a balanced program. A number of things have been mentioned that need to be talked about a little bit. The FERC industry standards board was mentioned as being an alternative. The fact is that is only a concept. Years of work will be needed to make it happen. There is no consensus among industry stakeholders. More has developed in the West, and that is why this has sort of started there because these people were forced to come together and others will be as well. I don't think it is time to jettison 30 years of experience in doing this thing so that you can hand it over to a new bureaucracy that has neither the expertise nor, indeed, the background to take care of this task. It has been mentioned, but it is very true that we need to have an opportunity for whatever we put into place to deal also with uniformity in reliability with the United States, Mexico, and western Canada. That is very important, particularly to the Northwest, of course, as mentioned by the Senator from Oregon. There is a need to move fairly quickly. I don't think there is much doubt that the NERC process would be able to act much more quickly in consensus building than FERC. The thing that it seems we always try to push aside is that FERC still has the final responsibility. That is probably the way it ought to be. The standard setting, we talked a little about that. I don't think that system has to recognize the realities of the differences that do exist. The enforcement of standards is well defined and responsive to differences in interactions, and it has to be that way. There is no definition process that is going to emerge from the industry. Often there are things going on here that just aren't actually the case on the ground. There was some suggestion that NERC's proposal was organized 3 years ago and is now obsolete. There is nothing obsolete about the NERC proposal. In fact, during this Western crisis of the last couple years, reliability standards was one of the few elements that worked well. So I think the evidence is that we have on the ground a group that is deeply involved and has shown expertise, representing different parts of the country, the needs of different parts of the country--certainly with the oversight that exists. So the Bingaman approach--the Daschle bill--does not provide a role for the States. There is no assurance of independence or any standard setting. Therefore, we need to look at the concept of how we are doing this. We are expecting a couple more Senators to come and speak momentarily. In the meantime, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I move to waive the pertinent section of the Budget Act, and I ask for the yeas and nays. I also have to add, we did not even know about this until 10 minutes ago. We have not even had time to look at what they are talking about. The Budget Committee is not able to tell us. I guess if my colleagues want to play this game, we can do it on the whole bill.

Mr. THOMAS. I thank the Senator from Oregon for his insight. I cannot think, frankly, of anyone in the whole country who has had more experience in this than the people on the west coast connected to the California project. I appreciate very much the Senator's thoughts. This bill has come to the Senate without the committee being involved. This very bill was passed by the committee last year with no objection from the Senator from New Mexico. This went through the committee, although what is before the Senate now was never talked about in the committee. That is a procedural question we have discussed quite a bit. Now I will discuss some of the objections. There are two points of view, very clearly. The Senator from Oregon said it very well: To whom are you going to look? I have been involved in this business in the past. The people in the business, the people who are responsible in your State, the people who have joined together in a region, have a much better view than bringing it back to the beltway for these decisions. That is the bottom line. It is a complicated business. However, in the current underlying bill, practically anyone can go to FERC. It is not uncomplicated there. The bill we are discussing gives FERC responsibility to defer to other organizations. FERC need not defer to anyone on anything if they choose not to. It is given sweeping new authority to preempt the judgments of existing State and national organizations with respect to the availability for transmission systems to supply the demand. That is where we are with the amendment. The amendment builds on an existing system. If you go to FERC, there is nothing to build on. Here, there is. Go to FERC: There are no people who have the expertise to do these things. In the existing system, there are. It does not require a new bureaucracy which would come about under the existing bill. Bulk power system reliability will continue to be managed outside of FERC's hearing rooms unless a problem arises. Then, of course, we can invoke FERC's intervention. That is the way it is designed to be, to start at the grassroots, do the decisionmaking there, and still have the opportunity to go to FERC through the network. That is not strange and unusual. That is why we have States. That is why we have local government. The amendment in the existing bill, under the Daschle bill, requires FERC to create a reliability structure. Ours does not. FERC need only approve reliability organizations that meet the requirements specified. S. 517 requires FERC to create a new reliability bureaucracy to take over the function that FERC now does not have the expertise to perform--where, indeed, we have expertise now. Cumbersome? We talked about it being cumbersome. Nothing in the amendment makes it cumbersome. FERC can entertain a complaint at any time, move as quickly as it deems warranted. I do not think you can ask for much more than that. We talked about only one part of this country when this was created. The interconnect-wide entity exists in Texas. Whether an eastern-wide entity is created is up to the East. It has been done in the West because there are unique problems there. These problems can be solved better by an interconnect and will be done throughout the rest of the country as well. This is what we are seeking to do. The complaint here is the structure is so complicated as to render it unworkable. Actually, the structure reflects the way the reliability has been managed by the North American bulk power system--rather successfully, as a matter of fact--and the legislation is needed to ensure that reliability experts who are not at FERC can take the actions necessary to protect the grid. That is what it is all about. We have people, and it has been successful. Certainly we need to build on that. It becomes more important as we go. It would be ironic for the industry to come to consensus on how to deal with these issues. There is no industry consensus on how to structure the relationship. That is why the arrangement is there. The bulk of the industry agrees they should continue with separate organizations that focus solely on reliability. That organization should coordinate closely with whatever organization devises the business practices. Because FERC has the ultimate oversight for reliability and whatever business standard is ultimately approved, FERC can assure the necessary coordination exists. That is really what it is all about. Out there, there are people who have done this. We know how to do it. We have evidence of that. But what we have not had is the opportunity for someone to really have the authority to do that. So this is what this does, giving that to FERC. You can argue if you want to, and I understand that and I hope Members understand, if you like having the Federal Government do it from here, that is what you ought to do. If you like working with your own public service commission--and by the way, the national public service commissions have supported this amendment. Talk about being just a regional thing, the national public service commissions support this amendment. I think we will have some more Senators over here to speak shortly. I think we ought to continue to delve into how we can best serve the American people with electric reliability, whether we transfer that to an agency that does not have the expertise or whether we try to use what is in place to make it more efficient. I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Campbell of Colorado as a cosponsor of the amendment.