Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my fellow Senators to support this very important amendment. This amendment would invest an additional $190 million in our Nation's future, by strengthening seven programs: The High School Equivalency Program, HEP; The College Assistance Migrant Program, CAMP; migrant education; local family information centers; bilingual education; Hispanic serving institutions, HSIs; and Head Start for children of migrant workers.

If we do no pass this amendment, funding for the High School Equivalency Program will be cut by 43 percent. This program provides academic instruction, counseling, computer assisted teaching, career awareness to migrant students studying for the GED, as well as assistance with college admissions and job placement.

If this amendment is not passed, 23 program slots will be eliminated due to the lack of funding. Currently, these 23 slots are filled by some of the oldest and best performing projects in the HEP program, some of which have been providing services for 30 years. As a whole, 73 percent of their students received GEDs, and no less than three of the programs have had consecutive years of 100 percent of their students receiving their GEDs. All of these programs are up for renewal as well as competition for these slots with other programs.

One of the 23 programs that faces elimination is in my own State of New Mexico at the Northern New Mexico Community College. Other States in which programs are at risk of not being renewed due to the lack of funding include Pennsylvania, Texas, Idaho, Mississippi, Colorado, Florida, Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and California.

A second program whose funding has been cut is the College Assistance Migrant Program or CAMP. CAMP recruits talented migrant high school

graduates and GED recipients, who aspire to a postsecondary education but lack adequate resources. CAMP assists students in their first year of college with personal and academic counseling, mentoring, and stipends.

Before the Federal Government created CAMP programs, there was no record of a migrant child having completed college. Since their inceptions, both HEP and CAMP have achieved stunning success rates. For the projects that received 5-year grants in 1999, 72 percent of the HEP participants have received their GEDs while over 80 percent of the CAMP students have successfully completed their first year of college. Over the history of the program, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students received baccalaureate degrees.

The existing 102 HEP and CAMP programs serve approximately 15,000 students in 25 States and Puerto Rico. Many areas of the country have no access to the programs at all. Based on the Department of Education's estimate, of the over 750,000 school-aged migrant children, over the next 5 years there will be over 170,000 migrant children who will become dropouts and eligible for HEP services. CAMP programs will have approximately 140,000 students who will qualify for services. The need for services far outstrips the programs' current resources.

The title I Migrant Education Program was established to provide a compensatory education program designed to deal with the difficulties encountered by children of migrant workers as a consequence of their mobility. Some of these children attend three or four schools in a single school year. They have a need for coordination of educational services among the States and local districts where they live, often for a short time. The MEP builds the support structures for migrant students so that they can achieve high levels of success both in and outside of school.

The U.S. Department of Education reports that more than 750,000 students were identified as eligible for the program in fiscal year 2001. Additional funds are needed to ensure that these children are able to meet the challenges mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act. This amendment will provide an additional $4,587,000 in needed funding.

The Local Family Information Centers was authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act to provide parents of title I students, including English language learners, with information about their children's schools so that they can help their children to meet the high standards we have set under NCLB. The Local Family Information Centers also help parents to hold their local and state school officials accountable and become more involved in their children's education. This amendment would increase funding by $12.8 million.

This amendment would increase funding to State and local education agencies in order to ensure that as many of the 4.6 million children with limited English skills as possible learn English, develop high levels of academic attainment, and meet the same challenging State academic standards as all children.

Title III is a formula grant program that distributes funding to all 50 States based on the number of limited English proficient, LEP, and recent immigrant students. The funds are used for developing effective language acquisition programs; training for bilingual/ESL teachers and regular teachers and educational personnel; parent involvement; and providing services for recently arrived immigrant students. This amendment would restore the $20.5 million cut in the current legislation and increase funds by an additional $64.5 million.

Currently, 35 percent of Hispanics are under the age of 18. The Educational Testing Service has projected the U.S. higher education system will grow by 3.5 million additional students by 2015 and that nearly 40 percent of these new students will be Hispanic. HSIs serve the largest concentrations of the Nation's youngest and largest ethnic population. HSIs, by definition, have a full-time student enrollment that is at least 25 percent Hispanic; further, at least one-half of their entire student enrollment is low-income. The impending emergence of more than 100 new HSIs, mostly in California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Illinois, in the next few years and the rapid growth of the Hispanic college-age population underscore the urgency for immediate, major, and sustained increases in title V funding.

At a time when the current labor force is reaching retirement age in substantial numbers, Hispanics already represent one of every three new workers joining the U.S. labor force, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. By 2025, the Bureau projects that one of two new workers joining the U.S. labor force will be Hispanic. This amendment would provide an additional $6.4 million in assistance to these great institutions.

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start, MSHS, programs serve nearly 32,000 migrant children and nearly 2,500 seasonal children annually, operating in 38 States in every region of the country. Migrant and Seasonal Head Start programs were the first Head Start programs to serve infants and toddlers. today, two-thirds of the children in the program are infants and toddlers.

Migrant and Seasonal Head Start was a response to the needs of migrant families. In most States, local childcare resources are not available when migrants come into a community, especially for infants and toddlers. When resources are not available, parents have no choice but to take the children to the fields where they are exposed to pesticides, hazardous equipment, extreme heat and other health dangers. This program is ever growing and so greater resources are needed to provide these essential services. This amendment requests an additional $69 million for Migrant and Seasonal Head Start.

We must do everything we can to provide every child with the best education we can. I urge my fellow Senators to support these greatly needed programs by providing them with the proper resources.

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

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to speak in favor of the amendment that Senator Reid of Nevada has offered relating to funding for various programs in this appropriations bill that are of particular importance to the Hispanic community. I strongly support Senator Reid's amendment and believe that it would be a very important step for us to take in keeping the commitment that we have made to the people of this country when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.

I have just completed spending 4 weeks in my State, most of the time in my State, and much of that time I was talking to people who were involved in education and were preparing for the new school year. It is clear that one message comes through in those discussions. That message is, What is the Federal Government going to do to keep its share of the bargain?

The Federal Government has imposed all sorts of new requirements on States and school districts about how they are to reform education, how they are to improve instruction in the schools, how they are to improve student performance in the schools. Unfortunately, when those educators see that the administration, first, in its request to Congress, and then the Congress itself, does not put forward the money which was committed in the No Child Left Behind Act, the cynicism on the part of many people working in education is understandable.

The amendment the Senator from Nevada has offered is an effort to correct some of that. I strongly support it. Let me talk about one particular aspect of it that I know better, perhaps, than I know some other parts. That relates to the dropout prevention program. This is a subject that has been debated and discussed and talked about in Washington and at the national level for a great many years. I remember when President Bush senior, the former President Bush--not this President Bush but this President Bush's father--convened all the Governors of the country to have a first and only, as far as I know to this day--first and only national summit on education. That was in Charlottesville, VA. It was in 1989, I believe. At that time the Governors and the President committed the country to a series of goals in education, things that we would all agree, jointly, to work on and accomplish over the coming 10 years. That was in 1989. That 10 years has come and gone. But one of those goals was that we would ensure that at least 90 percent of the students who started high school actually completed high school; that we would reduce the dropout rate very substantially in this country. That was one of the goals the President and the Governors signed onto.

I should say one of those Governors was former President Bill Clinton. Of course, there were many others who are still in key positions in our Government who were part of that group. The unfortunate reality is that after we adopted that set of goals, national education goals, there was no strategy to achieve them.

There was absolutely nothing done here in Washington and in many States, I fear, to actually get us to where we had committed to travel. Particularly in this area of dropout prevention, there was no Federal money committed. The first Federal money that was committed was a demonstration program in fiscal year 2001. I believe we committed $10 million to a demonstration program so that for the first time the Department of Education at the national level would have some funds available to help local school districts reduce the number of students who were leaving school without graduating, and to reduce the number of students who were dropping out.

This is of particular importance in my State because in my State we have a very high dropout rate. Unfortunately for everyone involved, that dropout rate is concentrated in the Hispanic community. Over 40 percent of the students in my State are of Hispanic background, and a great many of those students--particularly young Hispanic males--leave school without graduating from high school. That is not only unfortunate for them, but it substantially reduces their ability to be productive citizens, to earn a good income, to raise a family, and to do the things we all aspire to do. But it also is an unfortunate reality for our State's economy.

We do not have the ability to generate the wealth because we lack some of the skilled workforce we need, and that we could have if we keep those people in school longer.

In fiscal year 2001, the Congress stepped forward. This was before the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted. We stepped forward and said, OK, we will commit $10 million nationally to try to deal with this problem. That funding can be used to help school districts that have strategies which they want to pursue to reduce the dropout rate. That was an appropriate thing to do. When we had the debate and the hearings and the markup on the No Child Left Behind Act, we talked long and hard about this problem of the dropout rate and how to come to grips with it. In the final bill, I was very pleased to see the administration agreed with the Congress, and that we authorized $125 million a year to be spent to reduce the dropout rate. That bill was signed in January of 2001. Since then, we have had two budget requests from this President. In both of those budget requests--in 2001, and again this year--in each of the budget requests we have received, there has been zero funding proposed for dropout prevention. Absolutely nothing was requested for dropout prevention at the Federal level. The Congress stepped in last year and corrected some of that. Instead of putting in $10 million, the Congress put in $10.9 million. I appreciate that. That was a step the Congress took in spite of the fact there was zero funding requested by the administration.

This year, there are zero funds requested by the administration for dropout prevention. Unfortunately, this year, the bill we are considering on the Senate floor today follows the administration's recommendation and contains zero funds. The House bill follows the administration's recommendation and contains zero funds.

We are going from a situation where we committed $10 million to this program before we passed the No Child Left Behind Act to a situation where we are committing zero funds now that we have passed the No Child Left Behind Act. Understandably, people in the education community doubt the sincerity of those of us in Washington who keep talking about how important it is to reduce the dropout rate.

Why is this dropout rate issue relevant to a discussion, or particularly relevant to a discussion of No Child Left Behind? The main thrust of the No Child Left Behind Act was to increase accountability, raise standards, require more of teachers, and require more of students. The great concern which I heard in my State, and which I think lots of us heard, was if we are going to do that--which is a good thing because we all favor higher standards, we all favor better performance, we all favor better trained teachers and better performing students--but if we are going to do that, let us not kid ourselves and allow the students who are not keeping up to just go away and forget about it. That is the concern. That is why we also put a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act for some funding for dropout prevention. It is not a major amount. It is $125 million a year. But it was at least a commitment at the Federal level to help deal with the problem. It was a commitment that the Hispanic community--at least leaders of the Hispanic community who focus on education issues in my State, and virtually all the leaders of the Hispanic community in my State who focus on

education issues because they understand the importance that education holds for their community--all of those leaders would know this was a priority and that we would be able to move ahead and begin to deal with it systematically.

I hope very much we can adopt Senator Reid's amendment so we can add some funding and do something. I am not of the view that we are going to add $125 million. Senator Reid's amendment proposes to add $20 million. That is inadequate, but it certainly is much better than nothing, which is what we are now proposing.

There are other provisions in Senator Reid's amendment which I think are also very meritorious. He indicated in his description of the amendment funding for the Hispanic-serving institutions. That is important funding as well. Clearly, I support the effort to add some reasonable increase to that. There are 157 Hispanic-serving institutions which have received money from title V. A third of those institutions that are eligible have received no assistance. These grants are made on a competitive basis, and there are not enough funds to award grants to each of the institutions that meet the criteria.

The migrant program: Again, this is an area in which I think the Federal Government has a peculiarly important responsibility. You cannot expect each local State to have in place the kind of support system for migrant children of migrant families which is needed.

We are requiring in the No Child Left Behind Act that school districts raise the performance and the achievement level of all students. That includes those students who are students of migrant families who come into that school district for a few months, perhaps, and then leave. But the school district is held accountable for the performance of those students, as it should be held accountable for the performance of those students.

The number of those students is increasing. It has grown from 624,000 in fiscal year 1999 to over 800,000 this year. That growth, combined with the new mandates from this No Child Left Behind Act, will require that additional funding be made available. So I urge all Senators to support the amendment by my colleague from Nevada.

These are important programs. They need to be adequately funded. We have committed to fund these programs at an adequate level and, unfortunately, the bill before us does not do that. I hope very much this amendment will be adopted. It is a very modest amendment, frankly, compared to the size of the budget we are dealing with, compared to the size of the appropriations in this bill itself. So I hope this modest amendment to assist those most in need of educational services in our country can be supported.

I am very pleased to yield for a question.

Mr. President, in response to the question, let me say, I do very much agree we have the problem in New Mexico of way too many of our students leaving school before they graduate. Unfortunately, a disproportionately large portion of those students who leave school are Hispanic students.

Now, on the second point the Senator raised, that every time one of those students leaves school before he or she graduates, it may, in fact--and probably does--cost the Government something in various ways, the main thing that I see it does is it robs the society of the benefit of having a better educated citizen and a more productive citizen for the rest of that person's life because each of those people, if they will stay in school and complete high school, has a much greater ability to earn, a much greater ability to provide for their families. And all of that, of course, inures to the benefit of the entire society. They pay more taxes. They are able to contribute more to their community.

It is a very well-chosen investment of public funds to keep these students in school. That is all we are trying to do, to say that the Federal Government should do something to assist school districts which want to work on that problem. That is all we are saying.

The Federal Government cannot take the place of the school district, and should not be trying to, but it can, in some small way, assist local school districts which want to deal with the problem.

This last year, with the $10.9 million which was appropriated--this is in the current year, I should say--with the $10.9 million that was appropriated, my understanding is the Department of Education was able to make 24 grants to individual school districts in 19 different States to try to help them reduce the dropout rate. Two of those grants went to school districts in my home State of New Mexico. These are grants to assist those districts which have come up with a plan, a way to reduce the dropout rate, that they want to try to implement in their own district.

There are some proven strategies that have been shown to work. We need to give school districts more opportunities to implement those strategies. And that would be a major thrust of the amendment the Senator from Nevada has proposed. So I again urge my colleagues to support it.

I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania and assure him that I appreciate his commitment to trying to do what is right in this area. I know he has been substantially supportive on a lot of these efforts over many years. I very much appreciate that.

Let me try to be clear as to my understanding, and he can correct me if I am wrong. He has indicated that, yes, there is no money for the program that we authorized for dropout prevention--the $125 million per year authorization; there are zero funds in there for that. Although there was nearly $11 million in the current year funding, there is nothing in this upcoming year.

He has indicated that there are a couple of other places where school districts can use funds for this purpose if they choose to. One is that they can spend up to 1 percent--or they are required to spend 1 percent on either failing schools or dropout prevention, as I understand it.

Mr. President, I do not doubt that there is funding available for this if a school district can find it within its budget to use it for that purpose. The problem we have in my State--and I think all over the country--is that these school districts are under greater and greater pressure to increase their test scores, to demonstrate improved student performance. That is where the pressure is. That is where the money is going to be spent, unless we have some funds cordoned off that are available only for this kind of purpose-- this dropout prevention.

Clearly, everyone is well-intentioned here. A school superintendent or a school board will decide, OK, we have a lot of needs but the pressure we are feeling is to get these test scores up; we have to concentrate on getting these test scores up. Once that is done, a few years down the road we will be able to give more attention to the kids who are dropping out.

In the No Child Left Behind Act, we tried to say, no, we are going to cordon off some portion of the Federal funding that can only be used for this purpose. That doesn't mean every school district has to take that money or even has that need. If Russell, KS, doesn't have a dropout problem, they don't need to apply for one of these grants. A lot of communities in New Mexico have that problem and would love to be able to get one of these grants so they can deal with that problem. If it is left to them to take some of the funds they get under title I, or some other basket of funding, and devote it to that purpose alone, it is much less likely to happen.

So that is why we made provisions for dropout prevention as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act. That is why this Senate and this Congress were persuaded to add nearly $11 million to that line item last year and in the current year, even though the President requested nothing. I think the least we can do is do something similar in this Congress-- perhaps $20 million is the right figure--to ensure that this program at the Department of Education level, the Federal level, does not just die at the very time we are going around giving speeches about what a great thing No Child Left Behind was. That seems to me contrary to logic, and it is also contrary to what we told the American people we were about.

I see the manager wishes to speak again. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

My understanding is that this funding--in reference to students who have dropped out--contemplates what many States are doing, which is to use some of their title I funds for students who are in the criminal justice system. This is not dropout prevention; this is taking students who have dropped out. Maybe they have dropped out because they have been thrown in jail, but whatever the reason, they are no longer in the school system.

My understanding was that essentially the administration was saying you are required to use at least 1 percent of the title I funds that we provide to you to deal with these students who have left the system and are in the criminal justice system primarily. That is what States are doing.

What we were trying to do in the provision I am arguing for and Senator Reid is arguing for here in the No Child Left Behind Act is to get ahead of the problem and say we don't want these students leaving the school system. We want to help the school district to keep those students in school.

That is what we wanted to see funds devoted to, dropout prevention rather than assisting students who had already left the school system. Am I confused about that? Let me ask that question.

May I ask one additional question, Mr. President?

The chairman of the subcommittee has indicated that these are funds which, in the request from the Department of Education, are to be allocated for this purpose. Is there language in the bill before us which specifies that a portion, some percent, is to be used for dropout prevention? I am just not aware of that. If there is language to that effect, I have not seen it.

Mr. President, I will review this language and then perhaps be in a position to discuss further with the chairman what the language of the bill ought to provide to ensure that funds can be made available in grants to school districts in a way that they would actually use them for this purpose.

My concern is, the way the bill now stands, I do not see the opportunity being there for school districts to pursue these strategies. For that reason, I would like to review it a little further and then get back in touch with the Senator.

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

Mr. President, how much time is reserved for me?

Mr. President, let me use my 3 minutes to make the point that this is a very important amendment which the Senator from Nevada put forward to provide some additional funding for the programs that are most important in assisting Hispanic students and school districts that are serving Hispanic students around our country.

I believe very strongly that we need to adopt this amendment. One of the key provisions in it, which I spoke about earlier this morning, would add $20 million for dropout prevention. That is $20 million out of the $125 million that is authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act. The President asked for zero funds for that dropout prevention initiative.

I believe we in Congress should add something in the current year. We are providing nearly $11 million. I believe this amendment would allow us to provide at least $20 million, which is a start and which is a help. I hope very much it will be adopted.

In my home State, the Farmington public schools received a grant under the funding this last year for dropout prevention. It is funding they are using to assist students through individualized school reentry support activities, an alternative for remediation, transition-based life skills and career awareness, adult advisory and intensive mentoring services. They are working with these individual students who are at risk of dropping out.

My colleague from Pennsylvania, the chairman of the subcommittee, said, Well, there are already funds in the bill that can be used for these purposes. The funds he is referring to are funds which are allocated on the basis of the percentage of children and youth residing in locally operated correctional facilities. This is funding which is used by school districts to deal with this element that winds up in correctional facilities or are at risk of winding up in correctional facilities.

What I am advocating, and what I think the Senator from Nevada is advocating, is that we get out ahead of the problem and assist students who are at risk of leaving school. We try to help school districts keep those students in school and not wait until they get involved with the correctional system. We do not think it should be simply said, OK, if a kid gets thrown in jail or gets in trouble with the Department of Justice or the judicial system, then we will come to assist in some respects.

This is a very meritorious amendment. I hope my colleagues will support the Reid amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let me speak very briefly in regard to the Energy bill that we passed here last night. As I just did personally, let me congratulate the majority leader on the decision he and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, made to move ahead and take the bill that was developed and had strong bipartisan support in the previous Congress and send that to the conference with the House as the democratically passed bill.

I think that was the right decision. That bill, as many have said, had a strong majority in the previous Congress. I think there were 88 Senators voting for it. There were nearly that many voting for it last night when it, once again, passed the Senate. I think that does allow us to move to the next stage of the process of actually writing a comprehensive Energy bill.

I, like many of my colleagues on the Democratic side, strongly support enacting a comprehensive bill. We have worked very hard to do that in the previous Congress. We worked hard to do that in this Congress, and to assist the majority in the development of the bill.

I believe strongly that the amendments that were offered to the bill that my colleague, Senator Domenici, brought to the floor were constructive amendments, were intended to improve the bill, were intended to get us in a better position to serve the needs of the country as far as energy is concerned over the next years and decades.

I think this result is a good one. Like all successful results in Congress, nobody won everything; nobody lost everything. There were wins and losses on both sides. I think that is the nature of compromise. But the end result is the American people will win. We will be able to go to conference now and hopefully develop an Energy bill that will continue to enjoy strong bipartisan support.

That is a challenge, as I see it. We have come a long way in a bipartisan way. We have had disagreements about particular provisions of the bill, but by and large we have been willing to resolve those differences and come up with something that makes good sense for the country. That same process needs to continue in the conference. I am confident it will.

Again, my colleague Senator Domenici will chair that conference. We had some disagreement in the previous Congress as to whether the Senate or House chairman should be the chair of the conference. We concluded that, based on precedent and all, in the 107th Congress the House was entitled to that position. But it is obvious now that in this Congress the Senate is entitled to that position. Senator Domenici will chair the conference. I hope to be on the conference once the conferees are named, and I look forward to working with him and with all the other members on the conference to try to ensure that we come up with a good bill that meets our long-term energy needs.

Let me, before I yield the floor, just take a moment to thank the staff, the Energy Committee staff, the cloakroom staff, and Senator Daschle's staff, for the hard work they put in getting us to this point on the energy legislation: On the Democratic committee staff of the Energy Committee: Bob Simon, Sam Fowler, Vicki Thorne, Patty Beneke, Mike Connor, Leon Lowery, Deborah Estes, Jennifer Michael, Bill Wicker, Jonathan Black, Jonathan Epstein, Malini Sekhar, Poonum Agrawal, Amanda Goldman, Shelley Brown, and Rosemarie Calabro.

The Democratic cloakroom staff, of course, is essential to all the progress we make here in the Senate. I want to acknowledge them: Marty Paone, Lula Davis, Nancy Iacomini, Tim Mitchell, Tricia Engle, Bret Wincup, Eric Pederson, Joe Lapia, Ben Vaughan.

I thank all of them and also Senator Daschle's excellent staff that is essential to all progress, as well, here in the Senate: Mark Childress, Jonathan Lehman, Peter Umhofer, Mark Patterson, and Michele Ballentine.

I think the result we achieved regarding energy was a good one. We now have a lot of work to do this fall when we return on the conference. I look forward to that. I am confident we can succeed in passing a good, bipartisan bill. I hope that will be the result.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before we adjourn for the August recess, I'd like to make a brief statement related to Section 205 of the Senate Energy and Water appropriation bill. While we have not yet taken up this bill on the Senate floor, I expect that we will do so very quickly once we return from the August recess. I would therefore like to provide my views on a provision that has received significant attention in New Mexico.

Section 205 is a provision that addresses endangered species issues in the Middle Rio Grande in New Mexico. As a threshold matter, let met state that I support the approach taken in Section 205 to address the ongoing conflict between water use and the ESA in the Middle Rio Grande basin. While there is a remaining issue about the interpretation of one aspect of the language in that section, I have worked with Senator Domenici to address that issue and we will follow-up on that matter when the bill comes to the floor.

The conflict in the Middle Rio Grande was exacerbated by a recent decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals. Section 205 responds to that decision. I think it is an appropriate response because it provides a level of certainty for water users in the basin but leaves intact the requirements and goals of the Endangered Species Act. Let met explain that in more detail.

As many of my colleagues have already heard, the decision by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys requires the Bureau of Reclamation to reallocate water from the San Juan-Chama project if necessary to meet the requirements of the Endangered Species Act. What is remarkable about this decision--which needs to be redressed in my view--is that the San Juan-Chama project water is not native to the Rio Grande basin. It is water that originates in the San Juan River basin, and is brought over as a supplemental water supply for use in the Rio Grande basin. Use of this water--quite simply--has not caused the decline of the Rio Grande silvery

minnow, nor does it further jeopardize the existence of that species. The Court's decision, however, disregards these facts and erroneously directs the Bureau of Reclamation to reduce water deliveries to project contractors such as the cities of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, if necessary to meet the needs of endangered species. This result is not consistent with the intent of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA, and therefore unreasonably creates an uncertain water supply situation for a number of communities in New Mexico.

This situation needs correction and the intent of section 204 is to do just that. It eliminates reclamation's discretion to unilaterally take water from San Juan-Chama contractors and reallocate it for ESA purposes. Section 205, however, preserves voluntary transactions by which Reclamation can meet the needs of the endangered fish. This is how business has been done since 1996, and that process is allowed to continue.

Section 205 also includes a subsection that legislates the sufficiency of the ten-year biological opinion addressing water operations in the Middle Rio Grande. I understand that protecting a biological opinion through Federal legislation is not insignificant. Nonetheless, there are several reasons why I believe this approach is appropriate in this content. First, there has been an endless cycle of litigation over water operations in the Middle Rio Grande. We simply need some level of certainty for water users if we are to proceed to address the long-term requirements of the ESA. Second, it is important to keep in mind that compliance with the biological opinion not only ensures compliance with the ESA, but should serve to improve water- supply and habitat conditions in the Middle Rio Grande. The Biological Opinion contains a reasonable and prudent alternative, or ``RPA'', that emphasizes a broad approach to conserving endangered species in the Middle Rio Grande. It requires minimum river flows based on the annual available water supply, and includes spring releases to trigger silvery minnow spawning activity. The RPA also contains No. 1, requirements for significant habitat improvements, including fish passage at the San Acacia diversion dam; No. 2, population enhancement activity; and No. 3, water quality improvements in the basin.

As a fall-back, to ensure continued survival of the silvery minnow if the RPA does not significantly improve its status, the legal coverage provided by the biological opinion lapses if minnow mortality exceeds the limits defined in the opinion's incidental take statement. In that event, the Federal agencies will need to re-consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to ensure that the survival of endangered species is not jeopardized.

As a final matter, although I believe that the approach in Section 205 will maintain progress in recovering the minnow, mere compliance with the biological opinion is not the end of the story. I also expect that the Secretary of the Interior will aggressively pursue other actions to promote the recovery of endangered species in the Middle Rio Grande, including support for the efforts of the Middle Rio Grande ESA Collaborative Program. The Collaborative Program has been very successful in bringing together a diverse group of parties to work towards common restoration goals in the Middle Rio Grande. It will continue to be key to the recovery effort and I will continue to support funding its work.

Before yielding the floor, I want to specifically address some ongoing concerns with Section 205. First, Governor Richardson in New Mexico has been working with all the parties to the ongoing litigation to try and develop a comprehensive settlement to the difficult issues in the Middle Rio Grande. That settlement, while not yet secured, is within reach. If finalized, it will likely address a broader range of issues than the approach in Section 205. The concern being expressed is whether the Section 205 could be modified to accommodate legislation associated with any potential settlement. I want to ensure Governor Richardson and the parties at the table that I will remain open to consider any settlement proposal that may be developed as part of that process. A more comprehensive solution, particularly one developed by all the parties together, is a preferred approach that deserves substantial attention and consideration.

The Middle Rio Grande Pueblos have also expressed concern that their water supplies are not protected in Section 205. On this point, I think it is clear that the Tenth Circuit's decision does not provide any basis for the Secretary of the Interior to assert discretion over the Pueblos' available water supply and unilaterally reallocate such water for endangered species purposes. The Pueblos' legal status is different from the project contractors covered by the Tenth Circuit's decision. In fact, it is highly questionable whether any provision of law gives the Secretary discretion over the Pueblos water similar to that determined by the Tenth Circuit. Nonetheless, it is premature to conclusively address that issue at this time. I will, however, continue to work with the Pueblos, as well as Senator Domenici on this issue, to determine if a modification to this legislation should be considered.

I hope this statement provides a clear explanation on why I am supporting the legislative approach set forth in Section 205.I believe that it is a reasonable response to the issues confronting my state-- and one that should avoid being the basis for an Endangered Species Act fight. I thank Senator Domenici for working with me on this provision and I urge my colleagues to support this language.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to honor Dr. Jay Gogue, who has served as president of New Mexico State University since July 2000 and who will depart this August. A native Georgian, President Gogue received his doctorate in horticulture from Michigan State University. He then held many significant positions including: chief scientist for the National Park Service, vice president for research at Clemson University and provost at Utah State University.

From the outset, President Gogue's highest priority has been increasing academic opportunities for New Mexico State University students and faculty. Under his outstanding leadership, the university expanded distance education programs, increasing enrollment by about 70 percent last year. Additionally, President Gogue encouraged private donations, considerably increasing funds for the university. Recognizing the long-term benefits of solid relationships within the local and state arenas, he built strong associations between the university, alumni and the New Mexico legislature.

Throughout his tenure at New Mexico State University, President Gogue has continually been an exceptional, consummate leader and tireless advocate for New Mexico State University; his accomplishments will be long remembered. I wholeheartedly thank him for his dedication and wish him well in all his future endeavors.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a very simple piece of legislation that would revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233 and put back in force President Reagan's Executive Order 12667-- restoring the American people's access to Presidential papers. This bill is the companion to H.R. 1493, which is sponsored by Representative Doug Ose and has enjoyed bipartisan support in the House.

Twenty-five years ago, this body passed the Presidential Records Act and declared that a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States of America and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The Act provided that Presidential papers would be made available twelve years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate, President Reagan in 1989 signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President thirty days to claim executive privilege.

However, in 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, nullifying President Reagan's order and imposing new regulations for obtaining Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by forcing all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, to be approved by both the former President and current White House. In this way the order goes against the letter and the spirit of the Presidential Records Act by requiring the NARA to make a presumption of non-disclosure, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records simply by inaction.

The President's order also limits what types of papers are available by expanding the scope of executive privilege into new areas--namely communications between the President and his advisors and legal advice given to the President. Also, former Presidents can now designate third parties to exercise executive privilege on their behalf, meaning that Presidential papers could remain concealed many years after a President's death. These expansions raise some serious constitutional questions and cause unnecessary controversy that could end up congesting our already overburdened courts. My legislation simply seeks to restore a legitimate, streamlined means of carrying out this body's wishes--making Presidential records available for examination by the public and by Congress.

The administration shouldn't fear passage of this bill. Any documents that contain sensitive national security information would remain inaccessible, as would any documents pertaining to law enforcement or the deliberative process of the executive branch. Executive privilege for both former and current Presidents would still apply to any papers the White House designates. With these safeguards in place, there is no reason to further hinder access to documents that are in some cases more than twenty years old.

By not passing this bill, the Congress would greatly limit its own ability to investigate previous administrations, not to mention limit the ability of historians and other interested parties to research the past. Knowledge of the past enriches and informs our understanding of the present, and by limiting our access to these documents we do both ourselves and future generations a great disservice. Numerous historians, journalists, archivists and other scholars have voiced their disapproval of Executive Order 13233 because they understand how important access to Presidential papers can be to accurately describing and learning from past events. We here in the Congress cannot afford to surrender our ability to investigate previous Presidential administrations because doing so would remove a vitally important means of ensuring Presidential accountability.

I believe it is time for these documents to become part of the public record. I believe in open, honest, and accountable government, and I do not believe in keeping secrets from the American people. The Presidential Records Act was one of this country's most vital post- Watergate reforms and it remains vitally important today. In these times when trust in government is slipping more and more every day, we need to send a statement to the American people that we here in Washington don't need to hide from public scrutiny--that instead we welcome and encourage public scrutiny. This bill will send just such a message.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today emergency legislation with Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Kerry, Clinton, Murray, Lautenberg, and Mikulski that would extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying their health premiums costs through the Medicaid program. This specific program, for low-income senior and disabled citizens, was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended by the two continuing resolutions and the final appropriations bill through September 30, 2003. This legislation would simply further extend it for another year--through the end of 2004.

This program, known as the Qualifying Individual Program, or QI-1, within Medicaid is a block grant payment to states to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70 per month in 2003 for individuals with monthly incomes between $887 and $997 for individuals and between $1,194 and $1,344 for couples. This covers Medicare beneficiaries with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

This amounts to a benefit of over $700 annually that many older and disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health care costs, such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. Well over 120,000 people nationwide currently rely on the QI-1 and will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage without this assistance. In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress must extend the QI-1 program this year.

This is a bipartisan issue as well. President Bush had included QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, an extension has been included in S. 1, the ``Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003,'' but the conference is certainly not going to be completed, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President in time before the need for States to send out notices to beneficiaries alerting them to their forthcoming loss of cost sharing protections at the end of September.

As Ron Pollack, Executive Director at Families, USA notes in his letter of support for this legislation, ``Without an extension, over 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to be sent notices that the program is expiring. The result will be confusion, fear, and uncertainty among this population. This disruption can all be avoided by the quick and early passage of your extension bill.''

At the Federal level, the Congress and Administration are often criticized for failure to understand what are or are not the implications to real people. One hundred and twenty thousand low-income beneficiaries face the prospect of their cost sharing increasing by over $700 per year at the end of September. They cannot be assured that an extension will be passed or done so in a timely fashion. How are they supposed to plan and budget?

When we return in September, we will have just a few legislative days to pass an extension in the Senate, the House, and be signed by the President to stop the process of States having to send out disenrollment letters. We all know this can be very difficult to get through the Congress, as it requires unanimous consent, and may not occur in a timely fashion. If not, States will be forced to send out disenrollment letters to the 120,000 low-income seniors and the disabled that rely on the cost-sharing protections provided by the QI-1 program and begin to shut down their programs.

Again, this is emergency legislation that simply provisions a one- year extension of QI-1 program to prevent the cut-off of cost-sharing protections for 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries. We should be engaging in improving health coverage for low-income elderly and disabled citizens rather than leaving these vulnerable Americans facing fear, uncertainty, disruption, and increasing costs.

I urge immediate passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last evening, I introduced two bills with Senator Domenici and yet another one today to address a technical, but very important problem that the State of New Mexico and a number of other States, including that of the Majority Leader, have faced with respect to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. When CHIP was established by President Clinton and the Congress in 1997, an inequity was built into the program whereby certain states that had been more progressive and had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid prior to the enactment of the bill were penalized.

In the last Congress and again this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' to address this problem for a number of States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Tennessee. Our states have been unable to fully access Federal CHIP funds because the previous expansion of Medicaid to children was not recognized or ``grandfathered,'' while certain other States such as New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania were explicitly ``grandfathered'' in and their State expansions to children were allowed to be covered with CHIP dollars.

The National Governors' Association has long recognized this inequity and has, in fact, a policy that read, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

S. 621, the ``Children's Health Equity Act,'' did precisely that and the critical language from our legislation was included in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, which addressed both expired and expiring CHIP funds and the problem addressed by S. 621. We appreciated their recognition of that issue and supported the passage of that legislation after an extensive set of negotiations and compromises on the language.

For New Mexico, an important issue is that our State expanded coverage up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP. Because of this, the children in our State between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty are ineligible for CHIP. Thus, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of the last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. This, despite the fact our State ranks 2nd in the Nation in the percentage of children who are uninsured.

It is a travesty that money set-aside for New Mexico to address our children's coverage problem is not available to be spent and is thereby redistributed to other States who have far lower uninsured rates and whose children between 100 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for Federal CHIP dollars. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico.

The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. Put another way, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact New Mexico has expanded coverage all the way to 235 percent of poverty. Again, this is the 2nd highest rate of uninsured children in the country.

This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are often eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for the enhanced federal CHIP dollars, all of the remaining children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.

For New Mexico, the Senate language that was in S. 621 and included in S. 312 would have allowed New Mexico to spend up to 20 percent of its Federal CHIP allotments on children enrolled between 150 and 185 percent of poverty. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives chose to modify the Senate language in such a manner through the introduction and passage of H.r. 2854 that New Mexico may no longer be eligible.

The House of Representatives, which did not include language addressing New Mexico's problem in the first place, chose to edit the Senate language that ``grandfathered'' States that had previous expanded coverage ``up to'' 185 percent of poverty and above and replaced it with language that the State had to have expanded coverage to ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

This sounds rather technical, but this slight difference may ironically allow all the other states our bill intended to help, who expanded coverage beyond 185 percent of poverty, such as Vermont and Washington, to be ``grandfathered'' but not New Mexico. It is my contention, after reviewing the materials from our State that our State expanded coverage to 185 percent of poverty and operates a full Medicaid benefit at 185 percent of poverty and therefore should qualify as a State to be ``grandfathered.'' Unfortunately, the language change has left the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, uncertain of our State's eligibility, as some believe the State has only some up to 185 percent of poverty, or just short of that level, and therefore does not meet the test of ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

For six long years, the States of Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, and others have sought to fix the inequity in CHIP. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington had the original legislation to fix this problem and I picked up, modified, and reintroduced that legislation in the last two sessions of Congress. After six long years, to now find that New Mexico may be the only State excluded by the House change and 0.0001 percentage points, is both outrageous and unacceptable.

I contend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, can still make a determination that New Mexico meets this revised standard under H.R. 2854 and urge them to do so as soon possible.

However, in the meantime, since New Mexico's status is now in question. I introduced two bills last night and another one today with Senator Domenici that all clarify that New Mexico qualifies. The first includes New Mexico as a ``qualified state'' explicitly. This would leave no question at all. The second bill clarifies that a State found to be a partial percentage point below 185 percent of poverty would round up to the nearest number, that being 185 percent of poverty, and be eligible. That would also undoubtedly ensure New Mexico's eligibility. In order to release our hold, I have asked that the bill I introduced changing the percentage that a qualified state must be changed from 185 to

184 percent of poverty be approved by the State in conjunction with H.R. 2854. Unfortunately, our bill will then have to be taken up and passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President.

I have received a letter from Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell of the House Energy and Commerce Committee ensuring the intent of H.R. 2854 is to include New Mexico and provides their commitment that they will ensure any technical problem our State has with the language will be fixed immediately upon return from the August recess. I thank them for their commitment to New Mexico.

Once again, many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy and the children of New Mexico deserve better than they are getting from the Federal Government. I accept the commitment made by the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fix this problem and therefore urge the passage of both H.R. 2854 and the original legislation that I introduced today.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Florida, Senator Graham, to introduce a very simple piece of legislation that would revoke President Bush's Executive Order 13233 and put back in force President Reagan's Executive Order 12667-- restoring the American people's access to Presidential papers. This bill is the companion to H.R. 1493, which is sponsored by Representative Doug Ose and has enjoyed bipartisan support in the House.

Twenty-five years ago, this body passed the Presidential Records Act and declared that a President's papers were the property of the people of the United States of America and were to be administered by the National Archives and Records Administration, or NARA. The Act provided that Presidential papers would be made available twelve years after a President left office, allowing the former or incumbent President the right to claim executive privilege for particularly sensitive documents. In order to fulfill that mandate, President Reagan in 1989 signed Executive Order 12667, which gave the former or incumbent President thirty days to claim executive privilege.

However, in 2001, President Bush signed Executive Order 13233, nullifying President Reagan's order and imposing new regulations for obtaining Presidential documents. President Bush's new order greatly restricts access to Presidential papers by forcing all requests for documents, no matter how innocuous, to be approved by both the former President and current White House. In this way the order goes against the letter and the spirit of the Presidential Records Act by requiring the NARA to make a presumption of non-disclosure, thus allowing the White House to prevent the release of records simply by inaction.

The President's order also limits what types of papers are available by expanding the scope of executive privilege into new areas--namely communications between the President and his advisors and legal advice given to the President. Also, former Presidents can now designate third parties to exercise executive privilege on their behalf, meaning that Presidential papers could remain concealed many years after a President's death. These expansions raise some serious constitutional questions and cause unnecessary controversy that could end up congesting our already overburdened courts. My legislation simply seeks to restore a legitimate, streamlined means of carrying out this body's wishes--making Presidential records available for examination by the public and by Congress.

The administration shouldn't fear passage of this bill. Any documents that contain sensitive national security information would remain inaccessible, as would any documents pertaining to law enforcement or the deliberative process of the executive branch. Executive privilege for both former and current Presidents would still apply to any papers the White House designates. With these safeguards in place, there is no reason to further hinder access to documents that are in some cases more than twenty years old.

By not passing this bill, the Congress would greatly limit its own ability to investigate previous administrations, not to mention limit the ability of historians and other interested parties to research the past. Knowledge of the past enriches and informs our understanding of the present, and by limiting our access to these documents we do both ourselves and future generations a great disservice. Numerous historians, journalists, archivists and other scholars have voiced their disapproval of Executive Order 13233 because they understand how important access to Presidential papers can be to accurately describing and learning from past events. We here in the Congress cannot afford to surrender our ability to investigate previous Presidential administrations because doing so would remove a vitally important means of ensuring Presidential accountability.

I believe it is time for these documents to become part of the public record. I believe in open, honest, and accountable government, and I do not believe in keeping secrets from the American people. The Presidential Records Act was one of this country's most vital post- Watergate reforms and it remains vitally important today. In these times when trust in government is slipping more and more every day, we need to send a statement to the American people that we here in Washington don't need to hide from public scrutiny--that instead we welcome and encourage public scrutiny. This bill will send just such a message.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing today emergency legislation with Senators Landrieu, Lincoln, Kerry, Clinton, Murray, Lautenberg, and Mikulski that would extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries in paying their health premiums costs through the Medicaid program. This specific program, for low-income senior and disabled citizens, was enacted as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended and is slated for expiration at the end of fiscal year 2003. The program was extended by the two continuing resolutions and the final appropriations bill through September 30, 2003. This legislation would simply further extend it for another year--through the end of 2004.

This program, known as the Qualifying Individual Program, or QI-1, within Medicaid is a block grant payment to states to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70 per month in 2003 for individuals with monthly incomes between $887 and $997 for individuals and between $1,194 and $1,344 for couples. This covers Medicare beneficiaries with income between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal Poverty Level.

This amounts to a benefit of over $700 annually that many older and disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health care costs, such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. Well over 120,000 people nationwide currently rely on the QI-1 and will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage without this assistance. In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress must extend the QI-1 program this year.

This is a bipartisan issue as well. President Bush had included QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, an extension has been included in S. 1, the ``Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003,'' but the conference is certainly not going to be completed, passed by both the House and Senate, and signed into law by the President in time before the need for States to send out notices to beneficiaries alerting them to their forthcoming loss of cost sharing protections at the end of September.

As Ron Pollack, Executive Director at Families, USA notes in his letter of support for this legislation, ``Without an extension, over 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to be sent notices that the program is expiring. The result will be confusion, fear, and uncertainty among this population. This disruption can all be avoided by the quick and early passage of your extension bill.''

At the Federal level, the Congress and Administration are often criticized for failure to understand what are or are not the implications to real people. One hundred and twenty thousand low-income beneficiaries face the prospect of their cost sharing increasing by over $700 per year at the end of September. They cannot be assured that an extension will be passed or done so in a timely fashion. How are they supposed to plan and budget?

When we return in September, we will have just a few legislative days to pass an extension in the Senate, the House, and be signed by the President to stop the process of States having to send out disenrollment letters. We all know this can be very difficult to get through the Congress, as it requires unanimous consent, and may not occur in a timely fashion. If not, States will be forced to send out disenrollment letters to the 120,000 low-income seniors and the disabled that rely on the cost-sharing protections provided by the QI-1 program and begin to shut down their programs.

Again, this is emergency legislation that simply provisions a one- year extension of QI-1 program to prevent the cut-off of cost-sharing protections for 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries. We should be engaging in improving health coverage for low-income elderly and disabled citizens rather than leaving these vulnerable Americans facing fear, uncertainty, disruption, and increasing costs.

I urge immediate passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, last evening, I introduced two bills with Senator Domenici and yet another one today to address a technical, but very important problem that the State of New Mexico and a number of other States, including that of the Majority Leader, have faced with respect to the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP. When CHIP was established by President Clinton and the Congress in 1997, an inequity was built into the program whereby certain states that had been more progressive and had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid prior to the enactment of the bill were penalized.

In the last Congress and again this year, I introduced the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' to address this problem for a number of States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Tennessee. Our states have been unable to fully access Federal CHIP funds because the previous expansion of Medicaid to children was not recognized or ``grandfathered,'' while certain other States such as New York, Florida, and Pennsylvania were explicitly ``grandfathered'' in and their State expansions to children were allowed to be covered with CHIP dollars.

The National Governors' Association has long recognized this inequity and has, in fact, a policy that read, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.''

S. 621, the ``Children's Health Equity Act,'' did precisely that and the critical language from our legislation was included in S. 312 by Senators Rockefeller and Chafee, which addressed both expired and expiring CHIP funds and the problem addressed by S. 621. We appreciated their recognition of that issue and supported the passage of that legislation after an extensive set of negotiations and compromises on the language.

For New Mexico, an important issue is that our State expanded coverage up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP. Because of this, the children in our State between 100 percent and 185 percent of poverty are ineligible for CHIP. Thus, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of the last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. This, despite the fact our State ranks 2nd in the Nation in the percentage of children who are uninsured.

It is a travesty that money set-aside for New Mexico to address our children's coverage problem is not available to be spent and is thereby redistributed to other States who have far lower uninsured rates and whose children between 100 and 185 percent of poverty are eligible for Federal CHIP dollars. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico.

The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. Put another way, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact New Mexico has expanded coverage all the way to 235 percent of poverty. Again, this is the 2nd highest rate of uninsured children in the country.

This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are often eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for the enhanced federal CHIP dollars, all of the remaining children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need.

For New Mexico, the Senate language that was in S. 621 and included in S. 312 would have allowed New Mexico to spend up to 20 percent of its Federal CHIP allotments on children enrolled between 150 and 185 percent of poverty. Unfortunately, the House of Representatives chose to modify the Senate language in such a manner through the introduction and passage of H.r. 2854 that New Mexico may no longer be eligible.

The House of Representatives, which did not include language addressing New Mexico's problem in the first place, chose to edit the Senate language that ``grandfathered'' States that had previous expanded coverage ``up to'' 185 percent of poverty and above and replaced it with language that the State had to have expanded coverage to ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

This sounds rather technical, but this slight difference may ironically allow all the other states our bill intended to help, who expanded coverage beyond 185 percent of poverty, such as Vermont and Washington, to be ``grandfathered'' but not New Mexico. It is my contention, after reviewing the materials from our State that our State expanded coverage to 185 percent of poverty and operates a full Medicaid benefit at 185 percent of poverty and therefore should qualify as a State to be ``grandfathered.'' Unfortunately, the language change has left the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, uncertain of our State's eligibility, as some believe the State has only some up to 185 percent of poverty, or just short of that level, and therefore does not meet the test of ``at least'' 185 percent of poverty.

For six long years, the States of Washington, New Mexico, Vermont, and others have sought to fix the inequity in CHIP. Senator Slade Gorton of Washington had the original legislation to fix this problem and I picked up, modified, and reintroduced that legislation in the last two sessions of Congress. After six long years, to now find that New Mexico may be the only State excluded by the House change and 0.0001 percentage points, is both outrageous and unacceptable.

I contend that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, can still make a determination that New Mexico meets this revised standard under H.R. 2854 and urge them to do so as soon possible.

However, in the meantime, since New Mexico's status is now in question. I introduced two bills last night and another one today with Senator Domenici that all clarify that New Mexico qualifies. The first includes New Mexico as a ``qualified state'' explicitly. This would leave no question at all. The second bill clarifies that a State found to be a partial percentage point below 185 percent of poverty would round up to the nearest number, that being 185 percent of poverty, and be eligible. That would also undoubtedly ensure New Mexico's eligibility. In order to release our hold, I have asked that the bill I introduced changing the percentage that a qualified state must be changed from 185 to

184 percent of poverty be approved by the State in conjunction with H.R. 2854. Unfortunately, our bill will then have to be taken up and passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President.

I have received a letter from Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Member Dingell of the House Energy and Commerce Committee ensuring the intent of H.R. 2854 is to include New Mexico and provides their commitment that they will ensure any technical problem our State has with the language will be fixed immediately upon return from the August recess. I thank them for their commitment to New Mexico.

Once again, many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy and the children of New Mexico deserve better than they are getting from the Federal Government. I accept the commitment made by the leadership of the Senate Finance Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee to fix this problem and therefore urge the passage of both H.R. 2854 and the original legislation that I introduced today.

I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for yielding time on this amendment. I am a cosponsor of the amendment. I commend her for offering the amendment and focusing the attention of the Senate on this important set of issues.

The electricity title is perhaps the most complex part of this entire Energy bill. We recognize and understand there is a lot of complexity in writing a provision or a title that governs the regulation of electricity.

However, the issue that the Cantwell amendment deals with is not complicated. It is extremely straightforward. Frankly, I am at a loss to understand why we cannot get agreement between Democrats and Republicans in the Senate to go ahead and close this loophole which has become so clear to everyone in the country who has paid any attention to energy prices and energy markets in recent years.

Just a year ago, newspaper stories had almost daily headlines about power marketers manipulating the market in California and in the Northwest States, Washington and Oregon, in particular. Unfortunately, it seems something has been forgotten since those stories were written a year ago.

Senator Cantwell has outlined very dramatically and effectively the parade of these schemes devised to defraud utilities--and ultimately to defraud consumers--that have resulted in consumers paying substantially more every month when they pay their utility bills. They have very exotic names. But the truth is, her amendment is extremely straightforward.

Let me read the operative part of this amendment and ask how this can be objectionable to anyone.

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or

indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with the purchase

or sale of electric energy or the purchase or sale of

transmission services subject to the jurisdiction of the

Commission, manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance

in contravention of such rules and regulations as the

Commission may promulgate as appropriate in the public

interest for the protection of electric ratepayers.

What is wrong with saying it is illegal to engage in manipulative and deceptive practices? I cannot understand why we are spending so much time debating an issue that seems so straightforward to me.

The Domenici substitute does prohibit round-trip trades. And they should be prohibited. Unfortunately, it does not go the next step and do exactly what I just read, which the Cantwell amendment would do. We need to add this provision. We need to be sure the tools are there in the Federal Regulatory Commission to do this job in the future.

I sympathize with the statements the Senator from Washington has made about the inaction of the Federal Regulatory Commission in the early months of the Bush administration. There was a period when prices were going through the ceiling, particularly on the west coast, and we were not seeing action out of the Federal Regulatory Commission as we should have. That was corrected, in my view at least. It was corrected after the new chairman came in, Chairman Wood, and began to assert the authority the Federal Regulatory Commission had and should have been asserting all along to go ahead and step in.

This is an additional tool. We should give FERC this tool and make it clear in the law that all of these deceptive and manipulative practices are illegal. Once we make that clear, we are in a position to hold the Federal Regulatory Commission accountable if, in fact, manipulative or deceptive practices occur in the future.

This is not an academic inquiry. These practices resulted in increased utility bills for many Americans. The Senator from Washington should be commended for stepping in to ensure that does not recur in the future.

I yield the floor.

Yes. Madam President, first, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a cosponsor, if I am not already one, on the amendment.

Madam President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Kansas for proposing this amendment. In my view, it is offered in the same spirit in which the earlier amendment I offered related to mergers was offered, and also the amendment by Senator Cantwell related to market manipulation.

I think all three of those amendments have somewhat the same purpose, which is to strengthen this bill, to ensure there are necessary protections for consumers, ratepayers, and for others who, in the case of the Senator from Kansas, pointed out there are many contractors in the private sector who feel an amendment such as this is essential if they are going to be able to compete and not face some type of unfair competition from companies that are part of holding companies that are owned by utilities or that also own utilities.

Let me back up here and talk a little about the Public Holding Utility Company Act, because that is the basic issue that causes this amendment to come to the floor. As part of this bill, the proposal is that we repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act. That was in the bill passed in the previous Congress--the repeal of that. I have supported that but I have only supported it if it were clear that we were replacing those authorities and those responsibilities for regulation and oversight at the Federal level with other effective authorities for oversight and regulation.

My conclusion is that the Domenici substitute, as it now stands, does not put in place effective regulatory tools to ensure that at the Federal level we can prevent the abuses that caused the Public Utility Holding Company Act to come into existence in the first place.

There is a very useful article that I commend to all of the Senate in today's business section of the Washington Post, written by Peter Behr. It is called ``Energy Monoliths Could Return; Law Limiting Companies' Reach Faces Repeal.''

Well, the law that limits a company's reach that this article is talking about is the Public Utility Holding Company Act. As I say, there is general agreement that the act has become an anachronism; it is way too complex; that we need to modernize the Federal regulatory scheme in regard to utilities. So the Public Utility Holding Company Act should be repealed but it needs to be replaced with something that also constitutes effective regulation. Let me refer to the chart. I don't know if anybody can see it.

This tries to rapidly describe what is involved with the Public Utility Holding Company Act, or PUHCA, jurisdiction. It basically says that for a company which owns, as the chart shows, other affiliates--a utility generating and marketing affiliate--there are real restrictions on what that holding company can do with regard to any other acquisitions of utilities. Essentially, you can acquire one more utility, or you can own one utility, and then if you own any more than that, you come under a very strict set of requirements that are presently in the Public Utility Holding Company Act. Those requirements should be repealed but we need something that is effective.

This amendment tries to do that and would do it in an effective way. It accomplishes the same goal that I was trying to accomplish as part of--or one of the two goals I was trying to accomplish in the merger amendment I offered earlier yesterday, by requiring FERC to establish real firewalls around the utility affiliate of a holding company to prevent the assets of the utility from being used to prop up risky diversification ventures. That is, you cannot use the assets of the utility to support a contracting company, as an example, which is the kind of thing that the Senator from Kansas was talking about having to compete with.

I think the language of the amendment is extremely clear. It makes it very clear that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall promulgate regulations, shall apply in the case of a transaction between a public utility and an affiliate or associate company of the public utility--and that is what the chart shows--where you have a utility and another affiliate. It basically builds a firewall and gets at the issue I was talking about when I offered my amendment yesterday evening; that is, the public utility shall not cross-subsidize or shift costs from the affiliate or associate company to the public utility. It cannot encumber the assets of the public utility in order to prop up some other business. That is only fair as far as the ability of the other business to compete in the marketplace, but it is particularly important as security for the ratepayers of that public utility.

There are an enormous number of examples. I went through several of them yesterday. Let me refresh people's memories. There are many examples in the last year--in recent months, in fact--where utilities have been getting into other activities and have encumbered the assets of the utility, and the ratepayers of the utility have been adversely affected.

One example I mentioned yesterday, and I will mention it again because it does relate to Kansas, is West Star. It is the largest utility in the State of Kansas. It is owned by a holding company. West Star came under scrutiny last year because of problems that it encountered with nonutility affiliates.

West Star had invested in a number of unregulated ventures, including a home security company, and the home security company did not do well. So the holding company, which owned both the utility and the security company, shifted $1.6 billion of debt from its unregulated companies to the utility. It loaded these debts onto the utility, and then you have essentially the ratepayers of that utility left having to pay $100 million per year because of the activities of unregulated affiliates that had nothing to do with the utility itself.

Some would say this is something the States should handle. The Kansas Corporation Commission began an investigation this last summer into this situation. The Justice Department began an investigation. The Federal investigation resulted in the indictment of the CEO of the company for bank fraud, and the investigation of the Kansas Corporation Commission, which

is the State regulatory agency, resulted in a dramatic restructuring of the company to separate the utility from the unregulated companies of the holding company.

Some would say: They solved it at the State level. Why should we be having any authority at the Federal level? They solved it at the State level for the period going forward, but they did not solve it prior to this arrangement being put in place and, accordingly, the ratepayers are paying $100 million a year to repay the debt that the utility has acquired because of this activity.

One other example I mentioned yesterday that I will mention again is Portland General Electric. Portland General Electric was in the unfortunate position of having been acquired by Enron, and the Oregon Public Utility Commission required that a number of conditions be met before it approved that acquisition. That was helpful.

Frankly, they acted wisely in requiring those conditions. But even that was not adequate to fully insulate that utility from the collapse of Enron and from the collapse of the other many businesses in which Enron was engaged. The fate of the parent company has had a very adverse effect on the ability of Portland General to gain access to capital markets. As I say, that is just one of many other examples that can be cited.

This amendment Senator Feingold and Senator Brownback are offering is extremely meritorious. It is an essential part of what we ought to be doing if we are going to avoid getting back into a situation where cross-subsidy is permitted. We ought to have a bright line requirement that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ensure that cross-subsidy will not occur in these acquisitions and mergers. We owe that to ratepayers. We owe it to the public generally.

I hope very much we will adopt this amendment. I commend the authors of the amendment for their proposal today.

Madam President, let me check with the Democratic floor leader. I will get an answer back on that question.

In response, I don't believe I will use 5 minutes; I will probably use closer to 3 minutes, but I would like to have the ability to go on if I get warmed up.

Madam President, not wishing to object, I just indicate that I did not intend to ask for 10 minutes of debate on each of my two amendments, and then in addition ask for 2 minutes equally divided. I just intended to have some time to refresh people's memories of what the two amendments were, since they were proposed and debated yesterday.

As far as I am concerned, once I have had a chance to describe my amendment, and there has been any discussion in opposition, we can vote on the first of the Bingaman amendments.

Madam President, as I understand it, I now have 5 minutes to describe the first of the two amendments I have offered to the electricity title of the bill.

Let me make the obvious point at the beginning of my description, and that is that the amendment tries to do two basic things. It proposes language which would ensure that someone at the Federal level--in this case, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--has jurisdiction to review purchase and sale of generation companies

and generation assets, the companies that actually produce the electricity about which we are talking and which we have all come to expect to get when we turn on the switch and see the room light up.

We ought to have someone with authority over that because under the Domenici substitute as it now is, nobody has authority at the Federal level. It is not realistic to suggest the States can handle that problem. They cannot. There is no prohibition in law, and there will be none under this proposal, to one company acquiring all the generation in one particular region or one company acquiring all the generation in one part of the country. We should have someone reviewing the acquisitions of that generation capacity to be sure that ratepayers are looked out after. That is the first thing the amendment does.

The second thing the amendment does is to prohibit cross-subsidy between utility companies and affiliated companies that may be in the same general holding company. We are eliminating the Public Utility Holding Company Act, so there is going to be no restriction as provided under that act. We need to be sure that cross-subsidy does not occur.

I have an article dated December 26 of last year in the Wall Street Journal which does a very good job of pointing out the problem that needs to be fixed. It says:

Energy companies burned by disastrous forays into

commodities trading and other unregulated businesses are

increasingly seeking to pass some of the financial burden on

to their utility units. This could lead to higher electricity

rates for consumers in coming years.

Then it goes on to say:

Utilities are being nudged to buy assets from affiliates to

make loans to down-at-the-heels siblings or pass more money

to their parent companies.

The article goes through a series of examples of how this is happening.

One example I thought was particularly constructive was Duke Energy. In July of 2001, a Duke accountant contacted regulators complaining that expenses generated by unregulated parts of the company were being transferred to the books of Duke's utilities.

We need a capability at the Federal level to protect the ratepayers and to ensure that does not happen. We do not have that in the underlying Domenici substitute. The underlying substitute does say that the Commission shall look out to be sure the public interest is served, and that is useful. That, unfortunately, is very general.

What we need in the law, I firmly believe, is a bright line requirement that in order for these kinds of acquisitions and sales to occur and to be approved, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ought to determine that there is not going to be a cross-subsidy as a result, that utilities will not be loaded down with debt from nonutility companies held by the same company. We need to keep the protection in the bill.

Utilities are a different kind of business. It is important that the lights turn on when we flick a switch. It is important that other utilities function. In this case, in this electricity title, we need to be sure that ratepayers are adequately protected.

I am persuaded that this amendment will strengthen the bill. I hope very much my colleagues will support it. It is exactly the same language we had in the bill last year, and last year there was an effort to delete the language which I am offering as a second-degree amendment, and that effort lost in a vote of 67 to 29. So a majority of the Senate is on record supporting the language I have proposed as an amendment to the underlying Domenici substitute. I hope Members will support the amendment. It will strengthen the electricity title. I very much believe it is good public policy and will serve us well in the years ahead when some of these problems recur, as I fear they will.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, my understanding is that at this point, under the unanimous consent agreement, I am allotted 5 minutes to talk about my second amendment. Is that accurate?

Madam President, I will describe this second Bingaman amendment which was offered last evening. It was offered at a time when very few Senators or their staffs were in their offices and were not following this issue, I am afraid. The amendment tries to clarify a point in the bill that I think is very important.

Senator Domenici's substitute contains a delay in the issuance of FERC's standard market design rulemaking and it delays it until July of 2005, and that is not of concern. I accept that. Many believe the rule goes too far, should be dramatically modified, changed or completely abrogated, but others think we should go ahead right away. He has decided to put it off until July of 2005. So I am not involved in that in my amendment.

My amendment leaves the delay of the standard market design rule in place so it will still be delayed until July of 2005. However, in an effort to prevent FERC from renaming its rule, I believe that was the purpose that Senator Domenici and his staff had in an effort to keep FERC from renaming its rule and issuing that same rule, or something very close to it, under a different title, the bill would prohibit any rule or order of general applicability on matters within the scope of the rule. I think the clear meaning of that

language is that FERC could not issue a rule or order a general applicability on any issue that is dealt with in the proposed standard market design for 2 years from now.

Standard market design covers a world of issues. One example, FERC currently has a rule in process related to interconnections to the transmission grid. No matter what that rule said, FERC would be prohibited from issuing that rule, as I read this language. I do not think that was the intent of my colleague from New Mexico or others who worked on this bill.

There are even rules that the Commission is required to issue by provisions in the bill. We have various provisions in other parts of this bill that say the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall issue an order on this issue, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall issue an order on this subject. The bill requires rules on mergers, on transmission access by public power entities, on participant funding, and on other matters.

We are in the ironic position of having this one provision which says an order cannot be issued, a general applicability, on any subject that is covered by standard marketing design and at the same time we are saying you have to go ahead and issue orders of general applicability in these other areas.

So I am trying to get that clarified. I do not believe we are in disagreement on the substance but I do think it is important that we provide clear language or else we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.

The amendment I am offering says we would not want FERC issuing any final rule or order of general applicability establishing a standard market design. I think that is what we are trying to do. That is all my amendment does is to clarify that is what we are trying to do. I hope everybody will support it. I think it will make very clear that FERC will be able to go ahead and do the work that it is required to do in the next couple of years, between now and July of 2005. If we have another crisis such as we have had out in California or out in the west coast, we are going to be expecting FERC to issue orders of general applicability. They should be doing that. They should not be issuing a standard market design, and I am not suggesting they should, but they should have the authority to issue orders of general applicability and that is exactly what my amendment would give them.

I hope very much my colleagues will support the amendment and we can improve the bill by doing so.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I want to begin by commending my friend and colleague from New Mexico and the Chairman of both the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, for addressing a difficult situation on the Rio Grande River.

The provision at issue is Section 205 of the Energy and Water Appropriations bill and I would like to take this opportunity to engage Senator Domenici on that legislative language as part of the Senate's consideration of the bill.

We worked on Section 205 together, and it concerns water use in the Middle Rio Grande and compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA). More specifically, Section 205 addresses the June 12, 2003 decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Rio Grande Silvery Minnow v. Keys, and does the following:

Recognizing that importing San Juan-Chama project water from the San Juan River basin to the Rio Grande basin does not jeopardize endangered species in the Middle Rio Grande, Section 205(a) clarifies that the Bureau of Reclamation may not use discretion, if any, to unilaterally reduce or reallocate water to be delivered under San Juan-Chama project contracts for endangered species purposes in the Rio Grande River Basin.

Section 205(b) also expressly recognizes that compliance with the March 17, 2003 biological opinion concerning water operations in the Middle Rio Grande, as well as activities being conducted pursuant to P.L. 106-377, P.L. 107-66, and P.L. 108-7, constitute compliance with all ESA requirements as related to those actions, both federal and non- federal, that are incorporated as the proposed action in the biological opinion. Notwithstanding Section 205, the Secretary is to continue pursuing recovery of listed species in the Middle Rio Grande, including support for the Middle Rio Grande ESA collaborative program.

I believe we are in agreement on the effect of Section 205. Moreover, I think the legislation is an appropriate response to the Tenth Circuit's decision and strikes a proper balance by providing certainty for all water users in the Middle Rio Grande basin while still maintaining the policy that all water users have a shared interest and responsibility to comply with the requirements of the ESA. Given the benefits of this approach I would ask my colleague, as Chairman of Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, to maintain this approach in the conference with the House of Representatives and to include this interpretive language as part of the conference report.

I thank the distinguished Chairman for his consideration and explanation of this important matter. I believe that this language offers hope for the minnow and protection for the people of New Mexico.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Cochran, Landrieu, and Kerry entitled ``The Health Workforce Advisory Commission Act of 2003'' is designed to create a Health Workforce Advisory Commission to review Federal health workforce policies and make recommendations on improving those policies.

In my own State of New Mexico, over 9 percent of our total workforce is employed in the health sector. The New Mexico work force is not dissimilar to the rest of the Nation, where the total health workforce comprises 10.5 percent of the total U.S. labor force.

By 2020, the total population of New Mexico is projected to grow 32 percent and the population over 65 is projected to grow 80 percent, compared to national growth projections of 18 percent and 53 percent, respectively. But who will care for these burgeoning populations? New Mexico ranks 33rd among States in physicians per capita, and we graduate fewer new physicians per 1,000,000 population than the entire United States.

The problem is not simply one of too few physicians however. New Mexico ranks 7th lowest among the States in per capita employment of Licensed Practical/Vocational Nurses and we have 7 nurse anesthetists per 100,000 population, while the national average is close to 9 per 100,000 population. New Mexico ranks 49th in the Nation in then number of dentists per capita. In fact, while the State's population grew in the 1990s by 12 percent, the number of dentists in New Mexico declined 7 percent in the same time period. Among the 50 States, New Mexico ranks 42nd in the number of pharmacists per 100,000 population.

We are reflection of a crisis occurring in States across the Nation: a critical shortage in multiple areas of the health workforce in the face of a changing population whose health care needs are only going to grow and increase in complexity.

It is estimated that by 2050 the U.S. will need to more than triple its number of long-term care workers; enrollment in nursing education programs has been declining of the last 8 years; vacancy rates for pharmacists in Federal facilities is up to 18 percent and 11 percent in public hospitals. At the same time, the number of practitioners other than physician grew rapidly in the 1990s. How does this growth interact with the simultaneous shortages in other areas? How should the workforce of the future best be structured to meet the rise in baby boomers and how should we prepare for this?

These are the issues that health workforce policies attempt to address. There has been, and continues to be, a significant investment on the part of Federal and State governments in measuring, monitoring, and analyzing the numbers and types of health professionals who are trained and practice in the U.S. but despite such efforts, there remain significant problems in determining the appropriate number, type, and distribution of such personnel needed to provide access to appropriate care for Americans. The underlying problem is that health workforce policies developed by various State and

Federal entities tend to be profession or position specific. What is lacking is a perspective on health workforce policies that is both interactive and global in nature. As health care becomes increasingly complex, and as the health needs of the Nation changes, it is imperative to have a means with which the dynamics of a changing health care market and health care workforce can be assessed and addressed.

We are all aware of the critical nursing shortages so many areas face now, the increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining rural based physicians, the shortages of pharmacists and pharmacy techs, and of skilled laboratory technicians. And there are organizations focused on each of these specific issues; but these issues overlap in the marketplace and impact each other in ways we cannot currently define. It is as if there were a giant health care workforce machine with 500 interacting mechanisms and while there is a specific mechanic for each of these components, there is no mechanic looking at the machine as a whole. The health workforce is more than the sum of its individual parts, and in order to enact effective Federal workforce policies, this must be reflected in the analysis and creation of such policies. HWAC is designed to do that.

For these reasons, we have introduced legislation that will create a new health workforce commission, or HWAC for short. This legislation requires the creation of a national advisory commission to review and make recommendations pertaining to Federal health workforce policies. Specifically, it will: Review federal health workforce policy under the following Acts and their titles: Social Security Act, titles 18 & 19; Public Health Service Act Titles 7 & 8, NIH, DOD, and VA and other pertinent Acts and titles; Analyze and make recommendations to improve the methods used to measure and monitor the U.S. health workforce and the relationship between numbers and mix of such personnel and access to appropriate health care; Review health workforce policies and other factors and their impact on the ability of the health care system to provide optimal medical and health care services; Analyze and make recommendations pertaining to federal incentives, financial, regulatory, and otherwise, and federal programs currently in place to promote the education of an appropriate number and mix of health professionals to provide access to appropriate health care for U.S. citizens; Analyze and make recommendations about the appropriate supply and distribution of physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and personnel to achieve a health care system that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, equitable, and efficient; Analysis of the role(s) and global implications of internationally trained physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and personnel in the U.S. workforce; Analyze and make recommendations about achieving the appropriate diversity of the U.S. health workforce.

The Commission will be represented by national experts in health workforce issues, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, a wide spectrum of health professionals and personnel, and be geographically balanced in its representation. The Commission will work closely with other state and Federal advisory panels that deal with professional or work specific issues of health workforce policy. Membership in the Commission will be chosen by the Comptroller General, with representation from a diverse group of fields in health care, including members who are recognized for their policy expertise in health workforce measurement, monitoring, and analysis, health services, economic and other workforce related research and technology assessments. At least 25 percent of the members are to be health care providers from rural areas, in order to ensure a geographic balance in representation. Through the creation of HWAC, a nodal focus of information gathering, sharing, analysis, and implementation of the knowledge created about the dynamics of the U.S. health workforce will be put into place.

This legislation was created with significant input and assistance from a variety of national organizations representing a cross section of the spectrum of the U.S. health workforce. Organizations that have expressed support for this bill include: American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the American Chiropractic Association, the National Rural Health Association, the Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS, and the Therapeutic Communities of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today with Senator Domenici to address a technical problem with H.R. 2854 that potentially causes problems for the State of New Mexico. We continue to believe that New Mexico meets the definition of a ``qualifying state'' under the legislative language but introduce these two bills to clarify that New Mexico is such a State. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Cochran, Landrieu, and Kerry entitled ``The Health Workforce Advisory Commission Act of 2003'' is designed to create a Health Workforce Advisory Commission to review Federal health workforce policies and make recommendations on improving those policies.

In my own State of New Mexico, over 9 percent of our total workforce is employed in the health sector. The New Mexico work force is not dissimilar to the rest of the Nation, where the total health workforce comprises 10.5 percent of the total U.S. labor force.

By 2020, the total population of New Mexico is projected to grow 32 percent and the population over 65 is projected to grow 80 percent, compared to national growth projections of 18 percent and 53 percent, respectively. But who will care for these burgeoning populations? New Mexico ranks 33rd among States in physicians per capita, and we graduate fewer new physicians per 1,000,000 population than the entire United States.

The problem is not simply one of too few physicians however. New Mexico ranks 7th lowest among the States in per capita employment of Licensed Practical/Vocational Nurses and we have 7 nurse anesthetists per 100,000 population, while the national average is close to 9 per 100,000 population. New Mexico ranks 49th in the Nation in then number of dentists per capita. In fact, while the State's population grew in the 1990s by 12 percent, the number of dentists in New Mexico declined 7 percent in the same time period. Among the 50 States, New Mexico ranks 42nd in the number of pharmacists per 100,000 population.

We are reflection of a crisis occurring in States across the Nation: a critical shortage in multiple areas of the health workforce in the face of a changing population whose health care needs are only going to grow and increase in complexity.

It is estimated that by 2050 the U.S. will need to more than triple its number of long-term care workers; enrollment in nursing education programs has been declining of the last 8 years; vacancy rates for pharmacists in Federal facilities is up to 18 percent and 11 percent in public hospitals. At the same time, the number of practitioners other than physician grew rapidly in the 1990s. How does this growth interact with the simultaneous shortages in other areas? How should the workforce of the future best be structured to meet the rise in baby boomers and how should we prepare for this?

These are the issues that health workforce policies attempt to address. There has been, and continues to be, a significant investment on the part of Federal and State governments in measuring, monitoring, and analyzing the numbers and types of health professionals who are trained and practice in the U.S. but despite such efforts, there remain significant problems in determining the appropriate number, type, and distribution of such personnel needed to provide access to appropriate care for Americans. The underlying problem is that health workforce policies developed by various State and

Federal entities tend to be profession or position specific. What is lacking is a perspective on health workforce policies that is both interactive and global in nature. As health care becomes increasingly complex, and as the health needs of the Nation changes, it is imperative to have a means with which the dynamics of a changing health care market and health care workforce can be assessed and addressed.

We are all aware of the critical nursing shortages so many areas face now, the increasing difficulty in recruiting and retaining rural based physicians, the shortages of pharmacists and pharmacy techs, and of skilled laboratory technicians. And there are organizations focused on each of these specific issues; but these issues overlap in the marketplace and impact each other in ways we cannot currently define. It is as if there were a giant health care workforce machine with 500 interacting mechanisms and while there is a specific mechanic for each of these components, there is no mechanic looking at the machine as a whole. The health workforce is more than the sum of its individual parts, and in order to enact effective Federal workforce policies, this must be reflected in the analysis and creation of such policies. HWAC is designed to do that.

For these reasons, we have introduced legislation that will create a new health workforce commission, or HWAC for short. This legislation requires the creation of a national advisory commission to review and make recommendations pertaining to Federal health workforce policies. Specifically, it will: Review federal health workforce policy under the following Acts and their titles: Social Security Act, titles 18 & 19; Public Health Service Act Titles 7 & 8, NIH, DOD, and VA and other pertinent Acts and titles; Analyze and make recommendations to improve the methods used to measure and monitor the U.S. health workforce and the relationship between numbers and mix of such personnel and access to appropriate health care; Review health workforce policies and other factors and their impact on the ability of the health care system to provide optimal medical and health care services; Analyze and make recommendations pertaining to federal incentives, financial, regulatory, and otherwise, and federal programs currently in place to promote the education of an appropriate number and mix of health professionals to provide access to appropriate health care for U.S. citizens; Analyze and make recommendations about the appropriate supply and distribution of physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and personnel to achieve a health care system that is safe, effective, patient centered, timely, equitable, and efficient; Analysis of the role(s) and global implications of internationally trained physicians, nurses, and other health professionals and personnel in the U.S. workforce; Analyze and make recommendations about achieving the appropriate diversity of the U.S. health workforce.

The Commission will be represented by national experts in health workforce issues, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, a wide spectrum of health professionals and personnel, and be geographically balanced in its representation. The Commission will work closely with other state and Federal advisory panels that deal with professional or work specific issues of health workforce policy. Membership in the Commission will be chosen by the Comptroller General, with representation from a diverse group of fields in health care, including members who are recognized for their policy expertise in health workforce measurement, monitoring, and analysis, health services, economic and other workforce related research and technology assessments. At least 25 percent of the members are to be health care providers from rural areas, in order to ensure a geographic balance in representation. Through the creation of HWAC, a nodal focus of information gathering, sharing, analysis, and implementation of the knowledge created about the dynamics of the U.S. health workforce will be put into place.

This legislation was created with significant input and assistance from a variety of national organizations representing a cross section of the spectrum of the U.S. health workforce. Organizations that have expressed support for this bill include: American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Clinical Laboratory Association, the National Organization of Nurse Practitioner Faculties, the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, the American Chiropractic Association, the National Rural Health Association, the Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS, and the Therapeutic Communities of America.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing two bills today with Senator Domenici to address a technical problem with H.R. 2854 that potentially causes problems for the State of New Mexico. We continue to believe that New Mexico meets the definition of a ``qualifying state'' under the legislative language but introduce these two bills to clarify that New Mexico is such a State. I ask unanimous consent that the text of both bills to be printed in the Record.