Floor Statements

Mr. President, I agree with the points made by the minority leader and Senator Domenici as well. Let me just suggest, though, that I know Senator Durbin is here ready to debate his amendment, on which we hope we can get a vote this morning.

I think we could go ahead with that debate and then possibly even go ahead with some debate on the Bond-Levin issue while we are trying to clear any objections on this side. The hope is then we would be able to vote on one or both of those amendments before we go to the discussion about the Priscilla Owen nomination.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, how much time remains for me to discuss the Levin-Bond amendment and the Durbin amendment under the unanimous consent agreement?

Mr. President, let me speak for that 4 minutes to indicate my opposition to the Levin-Bond amendment. As I see that amendment, by adopting it, we would do two things. First, we would be erecting new barriers to the development of meaningful fuel economy standards. Secondly, we would be effectively walking away from an opportunity to do something right about decreasing our growing oil consumption. In both cases, we would be making a mistake.

The Bond-Levin amendment establishes additional criteria that would impose unnecessary hurdles to any significant increase in fuel efficiency standards. There are multiple new factors such as the effect of CAFE standards on the relative competitiveness of manufacturers and levels of U.S. employment. Those kinds of criteria are

being added to the current rulemaking process. In my view, adding those kinds of criteria will only cause the courts to revisit the careful balance that is already struck in the present statute.

NHTSA already considers in-depth evaluations of the impact of a standard on safety, on the environment, and on American jobs. And the Levin-Bond amendment complicates the agency's task by providing a lengthy list of 13 items which, in my view, are unnecessary and deliberately vague new statutory provisions that have to be considered.

This is not progress. We need to be honest with the American people and ourselves and recognize that if Alan Greenspan cannot even tell us the effect of a small drop in interest rates on the economy in the near future--as it is clear that he cannot and has not been able to, and he readily admits has not been able to--how can we expect the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration to possibly determine with accuracy the effect of any change in CAFE standards on employment levels or on relative competitiveness?

Passenger vehicles today already use more petroleum than is currently produced in the United States. The Energy Information Agency projects consumption to increase an additional 2 million barrels per day before the end of this decade. Consumer preference has switched to light trucks and sport utility vehicles in recent years, and this has caused the average fuel economy in the U.S. passenger fleet to actually drop rather than improve. We are going backward with regard to fuel efficiency in vehicles.

Today, we have the lowest fuel efficiency we have had since the early 1980s in our entire fleet of vehicles. A decision not to increase CAFE standards significantly is a decision to become more and more dependent on foreign energy sources.

I just returned from a meeting in the White House, where the President met with many of us, including my colleague from New Mexico, myself, the majority leader, the Democratic leader, and all of us were talking about how important it is that we move ahead with progressive energy legislation, and that we do so in order to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The biggest factor causing an increased dependence on foreign oil is the increase in the use of oil and gasoline in motor vehicles. Instead of increasing the efficiency with which we reduce the efficiency of our motor vehicles, we are moving in just the opposite direction.

Despite what automakers are saying, new engines, transmission, and hybrid technologies are now available to give automakers the means to increase gas mileage over the next 10 years without reducing either vehicle size or weight. Mr. President, we drove to the White House a few minutes ago in a new Honda Civic that is a hybrid. The average miles per gallon of that vehicle is between 45 and 50 miles.

It is very unfortunate, in my view, that the only hybrid vehicles available to a U.S. consumer today are Japanese vehicles. They are the hybrid that is produced by Honda and the hybrid produced by Toyota.

I see that my time is up. I urge my colleagues to oppose the Levin- Bond amendment. I do support Senator Durbin's amendment. I hope we can adopt that amendment and make some significant progress toward increasing vehicle fuel efficiency.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

The amendment Senator Domenici has now offered is a substitute for the entire electricity title of the Energy bill. It purports to contain consumer protections in order to compensate for the fact that in this bill we are also proposing to repeal PUHCA. What is PUHCA? That is the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

I have to agree the substitute amendment Senator Domenici has provided does contain some increase in the authority the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will have to review mergers and dispositions; that is, some increase in the authority of FERC to review mergers and acquisitions compared to the previous bill. I also concluded the substitute does not do enough to solve the problem.

The amendment I am offering contains the language we passed in last year's Senate Energy bill, language we believe fills this inadequacy, solves this problem in the underlying provision. Not only did the amendment pass the Senate last year, there was an amendment that would have removed this language. That amendment lost in the Senate by a vote of 67-29. Forty Senators voted for much stronger merger review authority than the provision contains.

FERC's merger review authority is essential in this industry which has been based on a system of local and regional monopolies. It is essential that authority be vested in FERC. The industry we are talking about historically has been based on local and regional monopolies and is moving toward depending much more on a competitive wholesale market for electricity generation. The industry is highly concentrated. Consolidation of generation and distribution transmission can prevent the development of a genuinely competitive market.

There are two big problems in the substitute provision Senator Domenici has provided with relation to merger and acquisition authority. Let me try to explain those.

First, this proposal does not cover the generation of energy. Everyone understands there are various parts to the energy industry. There are generation companies involved in generation, there are those involved in transmission, those that are involved in distribution, and some that are involved in all. However, generation is not covered under this language.

The second big problem is there are no real protections against cross-subsidies or encumbrance of assets owned by utilities. That raises a real prospect that people who pay utility bills will wind up subsidizing nonprofitable, unprofitable ventures that companies get into, particularly in the case where there are holding companies involved.

Let me talk about each of these issues. The first key failure I have talked about in the Domenici substitute is it does not make generation acquisitions or dispositions jurisdictional under the law. That means it does not give FERC authority over those. There is no requirement anyone oversee it at the Federal level and sign off on it.

For generation mergers, while it is true most activities in this area are divestiture of generation by vertically integrated utilities at this time, that may not always be the case. Utilities getting rid of generation do tend toward deconcentration of the market but not if they sell to large and growing generation companies. Instead of leading to less concentration, it can lead to more concentration, depending upon who is buying these generation facilities.

Without the authority provided in my amendment, FERC, which is charged with making sure the competitive market produces just and reasonable rates, would have to stand by and watch while the industry reconcentrates rather than deconcentrates. A single company could acquire every generator in this country and FERC could do nothing about it under the Domenici substitute. This is not compatible with the development of a competitive market. Even when the transaction is only the sale of generation facilities, there are serious issues at stake.

Many of the utilities in the headlines lately because they are either facing bankruptcy or have deep financial troubles have come as a result of the utility spinning off its generation to an affiliate who then gets into the unregulated electricity market. As a result, there are companies such as Xcel and Allegany that are experiencing serious financial distress because of the activities of their generation and marketing affiliates, but these affiliates are not under the jurisdiction of the FERC, so there will be no Federal oversight.

The second failure in the Domenici substitute is it does not require the FERC to create real protection against cross-subsidy or against encumbrance of assets in the new merged company. My amendment strengthens the standards under which FERC reviews mergers. Our provision requires the transactions can be shown to do no harm, either to competition, to consumers, or to the capacity of regulators to regulate. Further, it requires that FERC determine there will not be any cross-subsidy of affiliate companies and there will not be any encumbrance of assets for the benefits of the affiliate. This is essential if we are going to protect ratepayers. We did not allow that cross-subsidy to exist. The underlying Domenici amendment does not require that of the Federal Regulatory Commission.

Essentially, our provision requires that FERC create some way to determine the goals of the requirement be met. Perhaps the only way to accomplish this is to create real corporate insulation between the utility affiliate of a holding company and its unregulated affiliates. That could be done by creating firewalls around the utility affiliate, by enacting rules about transactions between affiliates or in a combination of the two.

The purposes behind the Public Utility Holding Company Act which we are ready to repeal as part of this overall Energy bill are to ensure consumers are not harmed by the complexity of corporate structure, that regulation not be made too difficult by that complexity, and that utility affiliates not be allowed to benefit from cross-subsidization or to cross-subsidize nonutility affiliates so that resources of the utility wind up being drained away from service to the customers. This is exactly what the bill requires FERC to do before approving a merger. That is what our amendment requires FERC to ensure before approving a merger.

I have three charts that will try to make this clearer. This is complex. Frankly, one of the difficulties of trying to begin in the evening at 6 p.m. with this very difficult, complex subject, there is an awful lot of knowledge Senators need to have in order to vote intelligently on these issues. Let me try to go through it with the charts.

The first chart is FERC jurisdiction at the present time. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, has jurisdiction over mergers of two different utilities. We are talking about, under the Federal Power Act, utilities that are vertically integrated. That is the traditional utility, the utility that provides electricity to my home in New Mexico, provides electricity to my home in Washington, DC, and to homes all around this country. Utilities own the generation capacity, own the transmission, and own the distribution. If two utilities want to merge, they have to present their proposal to merge to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission looks at that and says this is OK or this is not OK because we have determined it is not going to adversely affect the ratepayers. The people at home who are being served by one or the other of these utilities will not have to pay more if we approve this

merger. That is what FERC has to determine at this point.

In the past, all generation was owned by jurisdictional utility companies. This is the way the system was operated. If you had a plant to generate power, almost certainly that plant was owned by a utility company. There were no independent companies out there saying all we want to do is generate power and then we will sell it to utilities. It was all owned by utilities. If a utility merged with another utility, the merger was jurisdictional at FERC under the Federal Power Act. That means that FERC had to sign off on the deal, essentially, and that was the protection that was built into the law for consumers.

Since all generation except for small renewable generators and cogenerators under the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act was owned by utilities that were, in fact, under FERC jurisdiction, all mergers involving generation came under the jurisdiction of FERC.

That was a good system as far as it went, but that was the system which made sense when the Federal Power Act was enacted because then we were dealing with vertically integrated utilities.

The world has changed, so let me go to chart No. 2.

Before I talk about the changed world, let me describe this second chart. The title of this chart is ``PUHCA Jurisdiction.'' I said before, PUHCA is the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and the Public Utility Holding Company Act provides essentially a set of restrictions on what holding companies are able to do, and particularly what holding companies are able to do with regard to purchase or acquisition of utilities. If a holding company acquired a utility company, then the Securities and Exchange Commission under PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act, had jurisdiction and authority to review that acquisition. The relationships between the utility and all of its new affiliates were governed by the Public Utility Holding Company Act.

The proposal we have here before us in the Senate is let's repeal this entire thing. All of the restrictions under which holding companies operate today would no longer apply. The question is, If we do that, what are we going to substitute for that jurisdiction or for that oversight to ensure that consumers are not adversely affected? This shows the holding company over here on the right, and under it you see it owns a utility, it owns other affiliates, it owns perhaps another utility, generation and marketing affiliate--it has a variety of companies it holds as a holding company. The question is, Who is going to have the responsibility to be sure there will not be cross- subsidy so that ratepayers of utilities are not adversely affected if we eliminate the Public Utility Holding Company Act?

Let me move to the third chart to try to explain this. In the new world in which we now find ourselves, we no longer have as many vertically integrated utility companies. More and more we are seeing generation of electric power done by other companies which are not vertically integrated utilities. In this new world, generation is separated from the utility company, and it is either sold to a stand- alone generation company or spun off as an affiliate of a holding company that owns a utility. The sales or the spinoff would not be under FERC jurisdiction under the Federal Power Act, since generation facilities were not specifically put under FERC's authority. Generation facilities wound up under FERC's authority because they were part of integrated utilities. Now we are saying: OK, what do we put in place to live with this new world?

We are saying we need to specify that generation facilities are under FERC authority. They clearly would not be covered--there is no jurisdiction under FERC for the generation affiliate down below, or the generation affiliate of this utility. If those generation affiliates decide to merge, there is no prohibition against that. There is no requirement that any Federal agency review that to see whether it helps or hurts utility payers, ratepayers.

We get back to the point I was trying to make at the very beginning of my comments, which is you could see a company come along and buy up this generation affiliate, that generation affiliate, buy up all the generation affiliates in a region of the country, and do whatever it wished with regard to their rates for electricity, and nobody at the Federal level has oversight to review that.

I do not think that is in the best interests of consumers. I do not think that is in the best interests of ratepayers. Accordingly, I think we should fix it.

There are some horror stories that should make the point that what I am talking about is not just academic. This isn't something we dreamed up in some ivory tower somewhere. These are horror stories that can be read about in the mainstream press, in the trade press; in fact, it is hard to pick up a news publication that does not tell a new story about how some utility or other is in trouble because of its investments in and involvement in nonutility businesses. That is a very common problem that has arisen.

This is a quote from the December Wall Street Journal.

Energy companies burned by disastrous forays into

commodities trading and other unregulated businesses are

increasingly seeking to pass some of the financial burden

onto their utility units. This could lead to higher

electricity rates for consumers in coming years.

That is the Wall Street Journal, which is not a left-wing publication. According to the Journal:

Utilities are being nudged to buy assets from affiliates,

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

money to their parent companies.

Then the story goes on to say:

In many cases, regulators can do little to prevent energy

holding companies from milking their utility units.

What my amendment is trying to do is put in place some protections against this milking of utility units. When you talk about milking a utility unit, that is easily translated into raising electricity rates, raising the rates of the ratepayers in order to compensate for bad business judgments, unprofitable investments in other areas.

It is not enough for us to have in place some vague idea that we want to be helpful to consumers. What we want to say is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission needs to make a finding when it approves one of these acquisitions or mergers. It needs to make a finding that there is not going to be a cross-subsidy, that we are not going to see the assets of the utility encumbered in order to help some other part of this business, some other part of this holding company. That is what we are saying.

All of these stories result in negative effects on ratepayers and consumers.

When the utility is downgraded, its consumers pay increased costs of capital. Where the utility itself is facing bankruptcy, the effects on consumers can be even worse than that.

Wesstar is one example. Wesstar's regulators have been left with the unpleasant alternative of saddling the utility's ratepayers with $100 million per year, which is the cost that is required to pay down the debt the company caused by its investment in unregulated ventures.

It is clear that utility customers need to be protected against these excesses; that firewalls need to be built between the utility affiliates of a holding company and its unregulated affiliates.

These are not stories from the distant past. These are stories from today's headlines. Let me go into a little more detail on a few of them. Let me mention Wesstar. Wesstar I just mentioned. Let me go into a little more detail about the problem.

Wesstar is the largest utility in the State of Kansas. It is owned by a holding company, WRI, that also owns KP&L, the other large utility in the State. It owns a variety of nonutility companies and holdings. All of these together used to be the Kansas City Power and Light and Kansas Gas and Electric.

Wesstar came under scrutiny last year because of its problems caused by nonutility affiliates. Wesstar had invested in a number of unregulated ventures, including a home security company. That investment did not turn out well. The holding company shifted $1.5 billion of debt from the unregulated companies to the utility.

The Kansas Corporation Commission began an investigation. The Justice Department began an investigation last summer. The Federal investigation

resulted in the indictment of the CEO of the company for bank fraud. The Kansas Corporation Commission investigation resulted in a dramatic restructuring of the company to separate the utility from the unregulated companies of the holding company.

The utility customers, in spite of all that has since happened--these investigations occurred after the fact--are still left with an obligation to reduce the debt of the utility by $100 million a year because of the activities of the unregulated affiliates. Ratings agencies have reduced the debt rating of the company to below investment grade at this time. That is one example.

Let me mention another. AES is a holding company that owns generation assets and marketing assets around the world. In 2000, AES acquired Indiana Power and Light, which is a regulated utility in Indiana. Because of the difficulties in wholesale electricity markets, the utility has been propping up the debt of the parent company over the last 2 years. For the 2 years of 2000 and 2001, the utility's dividend payments to the parent exceeded its earnings by over $100 million. The parent company's rating has dropped from AA minus to double B since 2001. The utility's IPL is at the lowest investment grade. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission had no jurisdiction to review the acquisition of the utility by the holding company.

Let me give one more example. That is Portland General Electric. Portland General Electric is a regulated utility in Oregon. PG&E in the late 1990s was acquired by Enron Corporation. The Oregon Public Utility Commission required a number of conditions before it agreed to approve that acquisition. As a result of the corporate separation required by the public utility commission, the effect of Enron's bankruptcy has been less than other similar acquisitions in other States. But even so, PG&E is now a parentless company. It is in danger of being taken over by another company. The fate of the parent company has also had an effect on the ability of the company to gain access to capital markets.

I think the Senators from Oregon are probably better qualified than I to talk in detail about the frustration and dissatisfaction that utility ratepayers in Oregon have felt as a result of their unfortunate circumstance after being purchased by Enron.

The amendment I have offered is straightforward. In my view, it closes a very significant loophole that still exists in the electricity title and substitute electricity title Senator Domenici has presented to the Senate. It will help us head off the kinds of crises and the kinds of inflation or dramatic increase in utility rates that unfortunately have been seen in some parts of the country.

This is one of these issues where I think 2, 3, or 5 years from now people may look back and say, I wonder why I didn't vote for that amendment when we had a chance to plug that loophole. Those of us on the Energy Committee, quite frankly, will be saying, OK, who do we call before the Senate Energy Committee to hold accountable when these problems arise? The reality is it is going to be very hard to call anyone before the Senate Energy Committee unless we strengthen this legislation and put in there some very clear, bright-line tests that ensure we don't have crossover, to ensure the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is held responsible for overseeing the acquisition, sale, or purchase of generation facilities. If we make a decision here to not vest that responsibility somewhere in the Federal Government--and obviously the place to do it would be the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission--then I think we will rue the day we stopped short of doing that.

I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. It goes to the very heart of the electricity title of this bill. It would correct a very major deficiency in the electricity title of the bill as it now comes before the Senate.

I yield the floor. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. President, let me make a few comments in response to my colleague, my good friend from Wyoming. I do think that he is in an awkward position because he was cosponsor with me of this exact language in the consideration of the Energy bill in the last Congress-- the exact language that I am now proposing by way of amendment. I thought it was the right policy then. I still think it is the right policy. I hope very much we can persuade Senators to adopt it as part of this bill.

His statement was that we are preempting State authority if we adopt the language that I have offered by way of amendment. The National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners--those are the State commissioners--characterized the bill we had last year that had this provision in it, the provision I am now offering, as ``an admirable compromise between Federal and State jurisdictional issues.''

That does not sound like the words of an entity that believes it has been preempted to the point that it is unable to do its job. While it is true that States have some ability to deal with some of these problems, it is almost always the case that their statutes do not reflect the degree of protection that is currently in the law in the Public Utility Holding Company Act. They have not needed to have laws to provide those protections because PUHCA was in place. It has been Federal law for many years.

It is also true that many States that have found their customers to be victims of such abuse have not had the ability to deal with the problems. I gave you a couple of examples before where the States came along after the fact and tried to investigate, tried to find some way to make their consumers or their ratepayers whole, and found that they are not really able to do that. Some are trying. Some are trying in the face of tremendous opposition from their utilities to get the necessary authority from their State legislatures.

Do we have to wait for every State in the country to realize that their protections are inadequate once we repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act or should we not here in the Congress provide at least some minimum protection at the Federal level to replace the protections we are eliminating as we repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act?

I think we owe it to those who sent us here to provide this minimal protection. PUHCA broke up the industry into manageable chunks and focused on its core business--that is, the provision of a monopoly electric provision service by requiring that utilities either operate primarily in a single State or be regulated stringently at the Federal level by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Utilities were also forbidden to engage in businesses that were not directly related to their monopoly electric service without explicit approval from the SEC. Large utilities were forbidden from such activities completely. A holding could not acquire more than one utility company in more than one State without coming under these very severe bans.

So the sprawling empires of interconnected corporations owning electricity utilities were broken up. Companies were required to choose between their other businesses--staying in those other businesses or staying in the electric industry.

If we are going to repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, as we are proposing to do in this bill, then it is essential that we lodge the consumer protections that are so important to all Americans in a meaningful place. We have seen, over the last few years, how far astray from the goals of providing electricity to consumers at affordable prices our industry can wander. As we move forward, we must be sure that consumers are protected.

Let me make a comparison between the language that I proposed by way of amendment and the underlying language. The reason I am offering my amendment is that the Domenici substitute has in it, in my view, very inadequate language to ensure that consumers are protected. It says:

After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Commission

shall approve the proposed disposition, consolidation,

acquisition, or change of control--

That is any merger or acquisition anyone proposes and brings before the commission--

if it finds that the proposed transaction will be consistent

with the public interest.

Well, that is fine. I certainly want everything to be consistent with the public interest. But that is somewhat in the eye of the beholder as to what is meant by that phrase. It goes on to say:

In evaluating whether a transaction will be consistent with

the public interest, the Commission shall consider whether

the proposed transaction will adequately protect consumers,

will be consistent with the competitive wholesale markets,

will not impair the ability of the Commission or State

commission from having jurisdiction following the completion

of their transaction over any public utility, and will not

impair the financial integrity of any public utility that is

a party to the transaction, or an associate company or any

part of the transaction, and satisfies such other criteria as

they think is consistent with the public interest.

Essentially, it is going back and saying the Commission has tremendous

authority to decide what is consistent with the public interest and what is not consistent with public interest. Whatever they decide pretty much controls.

What I have proposed in the amendment that I have sent to the desk, and what we had in our bill last year, which my good friend from Wyoming supported last year, was much more specific. It said:

After notice and opportunity for a hearing, the Commission

shall approve the disposition, or consolidation, or

acquisition of control if it finds that the proposed

transaction, No. 1, will be consistent with the public

interest; second, will not adversely affect interests of

consumers of electric energy; third, will not impair the

ability of the Commission or the State Commission; and,

finally, will not lead to cross subsidization of associate

companies or encumber any utility assets for the benefit of

an associate company.

It seems clear to me that we should want to be sure that cross- subsidy will not occur. That is a bedrock requirement, as I see it, if FERC is going to sign off on these acquisitions and mergers. That is why we proposed this amendment.

The other thing we propose in this amendment, which I think is also bedrock, is that companies involved with generation--the purchase and sale of those companies should also be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The FERC has not had to have that authority up until now because we have had the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which ensured there was oversight. There was regulation of those generation companies. That will no longer be the case once the Public Utility Holding Company Act is repealed.

The question is, Who is going to oversee the purchase and sale of generation companies? Who is going to try to ensure that electric utility rates in a region, in a State, in a particular area do not go up because of the noncompetitive merger, or acquisition, or purchase of various generation facilities?

So, clearly, our amendment tries to plug some major loopholes. It is exactly the language we offered in the debate last year. It was adopted at that time by a substantial majority of Senators. It was supported by my good friend from Wyoming last year. It is good policy. It was good policy then, it is good policy now, and it is the kind of test which, if we don't adopt it, we will regret that we did not. It is another one of these circumstances where at some future date we will be giving speeches on the Senate floor saying let's tighten up the regulation, strengthen the regulation; we don't want to see somewhere around the country any more of those problems like we just saw.

I think the opportunity is here today. We know enough about the problem of cross-subsidization. We know enough about the economic difficulties, the financial difficulties that lead to cross- subsidization to anticipate this problem and to get ahead of it and deal with it. That is what my amendment does. I urge adoption of my amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to say a few more things about the pending amendment.

Then I do have a second amendment which I am glad to offer this evening as well.

I indicated there are several organizations that have supported the amendment I have sent to the desk, the American Association for Retired Persons, AARP, the Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Consumers for Fair Competition, the Consumers Union, the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, National Electrical Contractors Association, Plumbing, Heating and Cooling Contractors, National Association of Public Citizens, U.S. PIRG. All of those groups support the amendment I have offered.

In addition to that, we have a statement from the Bush administration

which was from last year supporting FERC review of transfers of generation assets, which is part of what the amendment does that I have sent to the desk. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

The administration includes language in its draft Electric Reliability Transmission Act to clarify the commission's authority over holding company mergers, and mergers and asset sales involving generation facilities. In another place in the administration's statement it says they support clarifying FERC authority over holding company mergers and mergers and asset dispositions involving generation facilities.

What I am proposing is not a radical policy proposal. It is exactly what we adopted last Congress. It was adopted by a substantial majority of the Senate. It was supported by the Bush administration. Now we are backing away from that.

I am told the Senator from New Mexico, my good friend Mr. Domenici, says this is agreed to by the Public Power Association and by the Rural Electric Cooperative Association. That is fine. I can understand that there are other things in the bill, in the overall electricity title, which cause them to believe this is something they should be quiet about or be willing to support--swallow hard and support, I would add-- but the reality is, it is not good policy for us to leave this issue unaddressed, this issue of adequate authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to oversee the acquisition or sale of generation facilities. That ought to be covered if we are going to pass an electricity title.

Clearly, there should be authority and an enforceable responsibility on the part of FERC to ensure cross-subsidy does not occur. Those are the two primary things my amendment tries to deal with. I think they are very important.

I have a letter from MBIA, Richard L. Weill, who is the vice chairman of MBIA Insurance Corporation. I will read portions of that for my colleagues, because I think it is instructive. He says:

I am writing on behalf of the MBIA Insurance Corporation in

support of your proposed amendment to the Energy Policy Act

of 2003 that would strengthen the regulatory framework of

utility mergers.

MBIA Insurance Corporation is the largest financial

guaranty insurance company in the world. We have guaranteed

the timely payment of principal and interest on more than $14

billion of electric utility debt. Our guarantee is

unconditional and irrevocable, even in the event of fraud. In

that context, we are profoundly concerned about the strength

and integrity of the regulatory scheme of electric utilities.

We are, in a sense, a gatekeeper to the capital markets for

these utilities. We provide investors with our unconditional

and irrevocable guarantee and, as a result, provide the

utilities with the lowest possible cost of access to the

capital markets. Our Triple-A rating by all major rating

agencies enables the utilities to sell debt at the lowest

interest rate. We can continue to serve these investors and

this industry only if we can be assured of the probity,

comprehensiveness and fairness of the regulatory framework.

Your amendment would require that proposed mergers promote

the public interest that is defined as encompassing the

effects on competition, economic efficiency and regulatory

oversight. It would also close loopholes that enable certain

corporate combinations to avoid being characterized as

mergers.

We believe that this amendment will be viewed favorably by

the capital markets.

We are trying to close loopholes that enable certain corporate combinations to avoid being characterized as mergers. That is exactly the problem with the substitute proposal Senator Domenici has laid before the Senate.

By adopting the language in my amendment--that was in the bill last year--we close those loopholes, we guarantee consumers will be protected, we guarantee these utilities will get the lowest possible interest rates and that this insurance arrangement can remain in effect.

This is a very good amendment. I hope my colleagues will support it. It will strengthen this bill. This is not an amendment offered with the intent of undermining the electricity title. This is an amendment offered with the intent of strengthening the electricity title. It is very well crafted, in my view, to accomplish that.

I yield the floor, and at the appropriate time I will offer another amendment on a different aspect of the electricity title.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the amendment that I just sent to the desk.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, my colleague from Wyoming is here. I mentioned to him that this is an issue which I would like us to try to find some way to resolve. This is something that we may well be able to avoid having a vote on tomorrow, if we can find a way to resolve it.

The amendment I have sent to the desk tries to clarify something in the bill that I think is very important. Senator Domenici's substitute contains a delay in the issuance of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's standard market design rulemaking until July 2005. I understand that. That is fine. I am not trying to disturb that. I believe the rule goes too far and should be dramatically modified or completely abrogated.

I know there are Members of the Senate who think 2005 is the wrong date, that we ought to go to 2008 or some other date. Others believe FERC should be permitted to go ahead, and as quickly as they would like. I am not taking a position on that issue with my amendment. I, frankly, can see both sides of the argument.

My amendment leaves the delay of the standard market design rule that Senator Domenici has included in his substitute in place. However, in an effort to prevent the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from renaming the rule and issuing it under a new title, the bill also goes on to prohibit ``any rule or order of general applicability on matters within the scope of the rule.''

That means the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cannot issue a rule or order of general applicability on any issue that is dealt with in the proposed rule during the 2 years of the delay.

What kind of actions would this prevent? That is the obvious question.

I think it would prevent the Commission from doing its job. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission currently has a rule in the process on interconnections to the transmission grid. No matter what that rule says, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be prohibited from issuing it under this language that we have in the Domenici substitute.

Other matters dealt with in the rule that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission would be prevented from dealing with in a generic manner are such issues as market oversight, market litigation, transmission pricing, the scope of regional transmission organizations--RTOs--the adequacy of rules or transactions across RTO boundaries, and, in short, just about anything that the Commission does about transmission or markets because the proposed rule touches on all of those issues.

There are even rules that the Commission is required to issue by other provisions in this Domenici substitute that they would be prohibited from issuing because of this provision that I am here trying to change. There are a number of rules necessary to get the reliability section to work. The bill requires rules on mergers, on transmission access by public power entities, on participant funding, and other matters.

The provision that I am here trying to modify or change would prohibit the issuance of those rules whereas in another place in the same title we are saying the Commission is directed to issue.

It would be ironic, indeed, if the rule's opponents who want stronger participant funding language in the rule were to have prevented the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from issuing this rule related to participant funding that they want to see issued because of their zeal to prevent the standard market design from being issued.

I also believe that some of the orders that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission issued in the Western market crises would be defined as orders of general applicability and would have been prohibited.

If we have another crisis which occurs during these upcoming 2 years,

would we not want the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to bring order to those markets the way they finally did in the West 2 years ago in the summer?

Everybody, both the opponents and the supporters of the standard market design, should support the amendment I am offering. It is an amendment to clarify that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is not banned from issuing any orders or rules that deal with any matter in the proposed rule; that they should only, instead, be prohibited from issuing a standard market design rule by any other name.

So I believe what I am proposing is something that all colleagues who have looked at this issue would agree with. We are just trying to clarify the language so we do not wind up prohibiting the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from doing the very things we are going to be calling upon them to get done, and that is the effect of the language that is in the Domenici substitute at this time.

So that is the thrust of my amendment. As I say, this is an issue which, frankly, we should not have to be dealing with by amendment on the Senate floor. I would hope we could just get this resolved at a staff level. We have not been able to. I hope that can still happen and that we can avoid having to go to a vote on this question because I think in the final analysis, if anybody will spend a little bit of time trying to understand this issue, they will agree with this change in language that I am proposing. And they will agree that is, in fact, what the Senate would like to see done.

So, Mr. President, with that, let me yield the floor. My colleague may want to speak on this same amendment.

Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of my friend from Wyoming. Now that we know the procedure--that this will not be voted on until tomorrow at some point--therefore, there will be an opportunity, perhaps this evening or early tomorrow, when our staffs can get together to see if there is any way to accommodate this concern I am trying to deal with in this amendment. As I say, it is a concern which I think many Senators will share if they will focus on what we are trying to deal with.

So the amendment is pending. If we have to, we can have a vote on it, but I would hope we could find another way to deal with this issue that will be acceptable to the chairman of the committee and to my colleague from Wyoming and to all Senators.

Mr. President, that is the only other amendment I intended to offer this evening.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Native American Entrepreneurs Act of 2003. The purpose of this legislation is straightforward: it authorizes grants of $3 million in 2004, $4 million in 2005, and $5 million in 2006 to qualified organizations to provide training and technical assistance to Native American entrepreneurs.

In my State of New Mexico and all across the country Native Americans still confront the problem of economic development, this in spite of the many efforts that have been made over time, both by Congress and by the tribes themselves. Over the last decade, some tribes have found a way to address this problem by focusing on the creation of gambling centers. But while these clearly have assisted many tribes, from where I sit this is at best a short- or medium-term solution that does not address the foremost issue at hand--that being how we help individual Native Americans acquire the business skills to become self-sufficient.

In the 106th Congress the Senate and the House passed legislation that created a program at the Small Business Administration that was designed to help disadvantaged individuals gain access to the technical training and funds. The bill--the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999, or PRIME--was drafted by several Senators, myself included, who felt it was imperative to encourage investment in microentrepreneurial activities in the United States. The reason for the effort was simple: microenterprise was a proven mechanism for enabling individuals on the periphery to obtain the capital and technical training needed to start their own business and move up the economic ladder in their community. It was also a proven mechanism for creating jobs, alleviating poverty, and stimulating economic development. It deserved to be pushed to the forefront of our legislative efforts in the Senate.

Under the PRIME legislation, organizations that provide technical assistance and loans to Native American communities are eligible for grants. But while diversity in grant award are mandated under the legislation, specific amounts mandated for Native Americans are not. The legislation I am introducing today would change that. The legislation provides additional funding to the PRIME Act for organizations that work with Native Americans specifically. In other words, the funding does not negate the possibility that further funds be provided to Native Americans under PRIME, nor, because it is additional funds over and above current authorization levels, does it cut into the funds that are now available to microenterprise organizations under PRIME. But it does ensure that organizations that serve only Native Americans get specific funding for their efforts.

I will be the first to admit that the authorization levels in this bill are modest, but they are feasible given the current budget environment. I will also admit that the bill carves out a small portion of the problem currently facing Native Americans, but I consider it to be a first step. I intend to address others problems in future legislation. The most important thing is that this bill, if enacted, will have an immediate and concrete impact in Native American communities in New Mexico and the rest of the country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Native American Entrepreneurs Act of 2003. The purpose of this legislation is straightforward: it authorizes grants of $3 million in 2004, $4 million in 2005, and $5 million in 2006 to qualified organizations to provide training and technical assistance to Native American entrepreneurs.

In my State of New Mexico and all across the country Native Americans still confront the problem of economic development, this in spite of the many efforts that have been made over time, both by Congress and by the tribes themselves. Over the last decade, some tribes have found a way to address this problem by focusing on the creation of gambling centers. But while these clearly have assisted many tribes, from where I sit this is at best a short- or medium-term solution that does not address the foremost issue at hand--that being how we help individual Native Americans acquire the business skills to become self-sufficient.

In the 106th Congress the Senate and the House passed legislation that created a program at the Small Business Administration that was designed to help disadvantaged individuals gain access to the technical training and funds. The bill--the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs Act of 1999, or PRIME--was drafted by several Senators, myself included, who felt it was imperative to encourage investment in microentrepreneurial activities in the United States. The reason for the effort was simple: microenterprise was a proven mechanism for enabling individuals on the periphery to obtain the capital and technical training needed to start their own business and move up the economic ladder in their community. It was also a proven mechanism for creating jobs, alleviating poverty, and stimulating economic development. It deserved to be pushed to the forefront of our legislative efforts in the Senate.

Under the PRIME legislation, organizations that provide technical assistance and loans to Native American communities are eligible for grants. But while diversity in grant award are mandated under the legislation, specific amounts mandated for Native Americans are not. The legislation I am introducing today would change that. The legislation provides additional funding to the PRIME Act for organizations that work with Native Americans specifically. In other words, the funding does not negate the possibility that further funds be provided to Native Americans under PRIME, nor, because it is additional funds over and above current authorization levels, does it cut into the funds that are now available to microenterprise organizations under PRIME. But it does ensure that organizations that serve only Native Americans get specific funding for their efforts.

I will be the first to admit that the authorization levels in this bill are modest, but they are feasible given the current budget environment. I will also admit that the bill carves out a small portion of the problem currently facing Native Americans, but I consider it to be a first step. I intend to address others problems in future legislation. The most important thing is that this bill, if enacted, will have an immediate and concrete impact in Native American communities in New Mexico and the rest of the country. I urge my colleagues to support it.

I ask unanimous consent that Antonio Gonzales, Daniel Archuleta, Jasmine Fallstitch, Christine Nelson, Ryan Davies, James Guttierrez, Frank Murray, Tara Peterkin, and Scott Pearsall be granted the privilege of the floor during debate on the Energy bill this week.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Colleges and Universities/Head Start Partnership Act, on behalf of myself and Senators Enzi, Daschle, Johnson, and Inouye.

As I am sure you all know, Head Start is the flagship Federal program that insures that disadvantaged children have access to the educational, social, health, and behavioral services that they need in order to be ready to enter and excel in school. Studies clearly show that Head Start is a strong and effective program and that children who enroll in it benefit from improved cognitive and social skills. Although Head Start is a model program, it can be even better. One factor that we know is strongly related to student outcomes is teacher quality and education. Simply put, the more advanced the credentials of the teacher, the better the outcomes for students.

In recognition of this fact, the 1998 Head Start reauthorization required that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have at least an Associate's Degree, AA, in early childhood or a related field by 2003. In the impending reauthorization of Head Start, is it likely that teacher credential requirements will be increased even further.

Although across the Nation as a whole, the 50 percent AA degree requirement for Head Start teachers has been met, there are some regions and sub-groups in the U.S. for which this is not the case. It is particularly difficult for Head Start teachers on Indian reservations, in rural areas, and those who teach migrants to access the necessary educational opportunities. Often, the distance these individuals would have to travel to take classes at the nearest college that offers an early childhood education degree is simply prohibitive.

The purpose of the Tribal College and University/Head Start Partnership Act is to facilitate the continuing education of Native American Head Start teachers so that they can obtain the credentials they need to provide the best outcomes for the children under their care. Nationally, only 14 percent of Native American Head Start teachers have an AA degree and a scant 7 percent have a BA degree or higher.

The current Act is based on the ``Head Start Partnerships with Tribally Controlled Land-Grant Colleges and Universities'' discretionary grants program at HHS. This program provided grants to 16 tribal universities and colleges during the period 1999-2001. The purpose of the program was to utilize the capabilities of these institutions of higher education to improve the quality of Head Start and Early Head Start programs funded through the American Indian Programs Branch, primarily by providing education and training opportunities for Head Start staff. Partnership agreements provided academic credits primarily toward Associate's or Bachelor's Degrees. Since the program began in 1999, 322 students have graduated from these programs and an additional 59 are expected to graduate by the end of 2003.

In my home State of New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, SIPI, received a 3-year grant of $150,000 per year. This grant has supported the teaching of courses leading directly to an AA degree in early childhood. There are roughly 125 declared majors, 90 percent of whom are Head Start teachers, enrolled in these classes each semester, distributed across eleven reservations and pueblos in New Mexico, the closest of which is 30 miles from the SIPI campus. Without access to this type of distance education, these dedicated Head Start teachers would not be able to receive the education that is crucial to both their own futures and to the lives of the many children they teach.

Although the Head Start Partnerships discretionary grants program at HHS has been very successful, funding has been sporadic. No grants were awarded in 2001 and 2002. Although HHS just recently announced a new competition for these grants, it is unclear if new grants will also be awarded in future years. I believe that an authorized grants program would be the best way to insure a steady and dependable source of funding so that tribal Head Start teachers can obtain the education that is so crucial to their success.

The TCU /Head Start Partnership Act would authorize 5-year grants to TCUs so that these institutions can develop programs resulting in increased numbers of advanced degrees for tribal Head Start teachers, particularly in technology mediated formats. The act authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005-2008, in order to achieve these goals.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important program. At a time when we are rightfully demanding that Head Start teachers be highly credentialed, we must provide the supports that are necessary to help teachers gain these credentials.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Tribal Colleges and Universities/Head Start Partnership Act, on behalf of myself and Senators Enzi, Daschle, Johnson, and Inouye.

As I am sure you all know, Head Start is the flagship Federal program that insures that disadvantaged children have access to the educational, social, health, and behavioral services that they need in order to be ready to enter and excel in school. Studies clearly show that Head Start is a strong and effective program and that children who enroll in it benefit from improved cognitive and social skills. Although Head Start is a model program, it can be even better. One factor that we know is strongly related to student outcomes is teacher quality and education. Simply put, the more advanced the credentials of the teacher, the better the outcomes for students.

In recognition of this fact, the 1998 Head Start reauthorization required that 50 percent of all Head Start teachers have at least an Associate's Degree, AA, in early childhood or a related field by 2003. In the impending reauthorization of Head Start, is it likely that teacher credential requirements will be increased even further.

Although across the Nation as a whole, the 50 percent AA degree requirement for Head Start teachers has been met, there are some regions and sub-groups in the U.S. for which this is not the case. It is particularly difficult for Head Start teachers on Indian reservations, in rural areas, and those who teach migrants to access the necessary educational opportunities. Often, the distance these individuals would have to travel to take classes at the nearest college that offers an early childhood education degree is simply prohibitive.

The purpose of the Tribal College and University/Head Start Partnership Act is to facilitate the continuing education of Native American Head Start teachers so that they can obtain the credentials they need to provide the best outcomes for the children under their care. Nationally, only 14 percent of Native American Head Start teachers have an AA degree and a scant 7 percent have a BA degree or higher.

The current Act is based on the ``Head Start Partnerships with Tribally Controlled Land-Grant Colleges and Universities'' discretionary grants program at HHS. This program provided grants to 16 tribal universities and colleges during the period 1999-2001. The purpose of the program was to utilize the capabilities of these institutions of higher education to improve the quality of Head Start and Early Head Start programs funded through the American Indian Programs Branch, primarily by providing education and training opportunities for Head Start staff. Partnership agreements provided academic credits primarily toward Associate's or Bachelor's Degrees. Since the program began in 1999, 322 students have graduated from these programs and an additional 59 are expected to graduate by the end of 2003.

In my home State of New Mexico, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, SIPI, received a 3-year grant of $150,000 per year. This grant has supported the teaching of courses leading directly to an AA degree in early childhood. There are roughly 125 declared majors, 90 percent of whom are Head Start teachers, enrolled in these classes each semester, distributed across eleven reservations and pueblos in New Mexico, the closest of which is 30 miles from the SIPI campus. Without access to this type of distance education, these dedicated Head Start teachers would not be able to receive the education that is crucial to both their own futures and to the lives of the many children they teach.

Although the Head Start Partnerships discretionary grants program at HHS has been very successful, funding has been sporadic. No grants were awarded in 2001 and 2002. Although HHS just recently announced a new competition for these grants, it is unclear if new grants will also be awarded in future years. I believe that an authorized grants program would be the best way to insure a steady and dependable source of funding so that tribal Head Start teachers can obtain the education that is so crucial to their success.

The TCU /Head Start Partnership Act would authorize 5-year grants to TCUs so that these institutions can develop programs resulting in increased numbers of advanced degrees for tribal Head Start teachers, particularly in technology mediated formats. The act authorizes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2004 and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 2005-2008, in order to achieve these goals.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this extremely important program. At a time when we are rightfully demanding that Head Start teachers be highly credentialed, we must provide the supports that are necessary to help teachers gain these credentials.

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

Mr. President, I take a couple of minutes to speak about the tragic death of Colin McMillan, who was a very outstanding citizen of our State of New Mexico. He had distinguished himself as a businessman and also as a public servant in Roswell. In Santa Fe, he served in the State legislature, with a leadership position, and also here in Washington, where he served in the Department of Defense in the previous Bush administration. He was influential and effective in all of the positions he held. He was extremely well respected for his straight dealing and his integrity.

I met Colin first when I was in law practice in Santa Fe and he was in our State legislature. As I indicated, he had a very prominent position, a leadership position, in our State legislature back in the 1970s. Since then, our paths have crossed many times. Most recently, we spoke when he came to my office to discuss his nomination by President Bush to serve as the Secretary of the Navy.

This is a position I strongly supported him obtaining and I told him I was looking forward to him being back in Washington. I know he and his wife Kay were looking forward to returning to Washington. He spoke with great enthusiasm about his plans in that new position.

His death is a loss to us in New Mexico, and it is a loss to the country. We will be deprived of his leadership.

I know he was a very good friend of my colleague, Senator Domenici, for many years and a political ally in New Mexico for many years. His loss will be noted and regretted by all of us in New Mexico.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, let my compliment my colleague on his statement and also our colleague from Montana.

This is a very serious issue, one we have had many hearings on, one very recently. The problem is just as Senator Domenici described it. We have sort of an annual event. Annually, we find out we haven't put enough money in these appropriations bills to fight fires. Accordingly, the agencies involved, in particular the Forest Service, understandably have to go somewhere to get that money. They go into these other accounts. These are the funds they should be using to do the forest thinning and forest health and restoration work we all know is essential.

Last Saturday, I went up to Taos in our home State to see the damage that was done in the Taos pueblo by the Encebado fire. That was a very substantial fire, burning close to 6,000 acres of land, right behind the Taos pueblo. We got a helicopter tour with the Governor and the war chief and the BIA officials and others to survey all the damage that had been done.

On our way back after we had surveyed the damage, which was extensive, we flew down what is called Lucero Canyon. That area was one that the Governor and the war chief pointed out and said: This is an area which is greatly overgrown and which we need to thin. We very much would like to get some Federal funds to help with this thinning activity because our next forest fire we fear is going to be in this canyon.

It is also part of the Taos pueblo land. It is clearly also in danger of burning. That is one area which is one of many areas in northern New Mexico and throughout the West that could be singled out for high risk of being subject to some kind of catastrophic fire.

As Senator Domenici said, there are two separate needs. One, we have to have money to fight fires when fires start. But a separate and equally important need is that we have to be able to use the funds we appropriate for thinning activities and for forest restoration activities. We have to be able to use that money for those purposes and not have it transferred for this other purpose. So I hope we can find a solution.

The proposal I have made is that we essentially give the Forest Service authority to go to Treasury and borrow money so they don't have to take it from their other accounts. To the extent there is a need to fight fires, let them go to Treasury and get that money and then have that money reimbursed by Congress in a supplemental later.

I don't think it is tenable for us to think each year, when we have the fire season, we are going to pass a new supplemental appropriations bill. We may have to do that this year. I am not arguing against doing that this year. But that is not a long-term solution to the problem. We need to recognize this problem is with us. Every year we have these fires and every year we come up short in funds to fight them.

I very much hope we can solve that problem and do it in a way that avoids the robbing of funds from the restoration accounts, which is what we have been doing each year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

En Bloc Amendments Nos. 1396 Through 1401

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, I rise to recognize a great New Mexican, Paul Bernal, who passed away on July 16. Mr. Bernal was a truly remarkable--yet remarkably humble--man.

Mr. Bernal was best known for his work to recover the Pueblo de Taos' title to its people's sacred Blue Lake, which lies in the Sangre de Cristo Mountains of northern New Mexico. Mr. Bernal served the Pueblo for many decades as a strategist and interpreter in its struggle to restore this sacred piece of land, which was taken without just compensation by the United States at the turn of the century. The Pueblo de Taos is a very traditional community and at that time had few leaders who spoke the English language. This language barrier stalled the Pueblo's efforts for decades. Mr. Bernal, who in 1946 had completed his service to this country aboard the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga in World War II, was appointed by the Pueblo elders to overcome this barrier and achieve the goal of restoring these sacred lands.

Mr. Bernal and his colleagues did achieve their goal, and the restoration act returned 48,000 acres of the Carson National Forest to be held in trust for the Pueblo to use for traditional purposes. It also restored to the Pueblo their rights to hunt, fish, graze livestock and, most importantly, to hold their lakeside ceremonies undisturbed. Mr. Bernal's courage and dedication is an inspiration and a testament to perseverance from which we can all learn.

I am honored to say that I had the opportunity to work with the Pueblo and Mr. Bernal when I cosponsored a bill in the mid-1990's to restore a final tract of sacred land to complete the Blue Lake wilderness' integrity--a tract the Taos Pueblo people use as the sacred Path of Life Trail that connects the Pueblo itself with Blue Lake. At a 1994 hearing on the bill, I had the privilege of hosting the last of Mr. Bernal's many appearances before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. At that hearing, Mr. Bernal remembered the days when he testified before the distinguished and longtime Committee Chairman Scoop Jackson: ``They used to call me Mr. Blue Lake,'' Mr. Bernal said, ``I loved that name.''

Mr. Blue Lake surely will be missed. My thoughts and prayers are with Paul Bernal's family and community. I hope they can be comforted by the fact that his was a life of dedicated service to his people and country, and that his legacy will endure with the continued use of the sacred Blue Lake and its surrounding wilderness.

Mr. President, I engage in a colloquy with the chairman and ranking member of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. President, let me begin by thanking Senators Cochran and Byrd for their leadership on this legislation. They have crafted a very good bill, which will go a long way toward improving security along our Nation's borders.

For many years now, I have been concerned about the vulnerability of the U.S.-Mexico border in my home state of New Mexico. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that there are still miles of border land where there is nothing separating my state from Mexico. To correct this problem, I requested and the Appropriations Committee approved $967,000 in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for the Border Patrol to construct vehicle barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border in New Mexico.

The original appropriations are now nearly exhausted and this important project will have to come to a halt in the near future if more funding is not allocated to this effort. I have been informed by the New Mexico Border Authority that an additional 76 miles of vehicle barriers need to be constructed at an estimated cost of approximately $2.4 million.

I understand that the bill we are now considering includes $90.3 million for construction for the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Is it the expectation of the chairman and ranking member that the funds in this account could be used for continuing the construction of additional barriers?

Let me also ask whether it is the opinion of the chairman and ranking member that this project is worthwhile and that the Department of Homeland Security should be encouraged to continue it in fiscal year 2004?

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.

The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents.

The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico.

Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems.

In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation.

The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country.

In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona.

However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health

systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.''

The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.

However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,

Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured.

I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn entitled the Border Health Security Act of 2003. This bill addresses the tremendous health problems confronting our Nation's southwestern border.

The United States-Mexico border region is defined in the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission authorizing legislation as the area of land 100 kilometers, or 62.5 miles, north and south of the international boundary. It stretches 2,000 miles from California, through Arizona and New Mexico to the southern tip of Texas and is estimated to have a population of 12 million residents.

The border region comprises two sovereign nations, 25 Native American tribes, and four States in the United States and six States in Mexico.

Why should we provide some focus to this geographic region? The situation along the border is among the most dire in the country. In the past, we have recognized problems with other regions, through the Denali, Delta, and Appalachian commissions, and have provided targeted funding to those areas. The U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission, legislation I sponsored with Senators McCain, Simon and Hutchison, was created for the same reasons and annually receives about $4 million in funding that is matched by $1 million from the Mexican government for administrative purposes to improve international cooperation and agreements to tackle health problems in the region. However, we need to take the next step and provide resources to address the problems.

In the border region, three of the ten poorest counties in the United States are located in the border area, 21 of the counties have been designated as economically distressed, approximately 430,000 people live in 1,200 colonias in Texas and New Mexico, which are unincorporated communities that are characterized by substandard housing, unsafe public drinking water, and wastewater systems, very high unemployment, and the lower per capita income as a region in the Nation.

The result is a health system that confronts tremendous health problems with little or no resources. Although it is difficult to access the health needs along the border since data is more often collected on a statewide basis, we do know that diabetes, cancer, infectious disease such as tuberculosis, and health disease rates are far greater than the national average but the residents in the area have the highest uninsured rates in the country.

In fact, the States of Texas, New Mexico, and California rank as the States with the three worst uninsured rates in the country to begin with. Arizona is not much better and ranks 46th in the Nation, just ahead of Louisiana and Oklahoma. The uninsured rates of these States are: 23.5 percent in Texas, 20.7 percent in New Mexico, 19.5 percent in California, and 18.3 percent in Arizona.

However, the figures along the border are even worse, as the rates of uninsured are higher still than that in the four States overall. Uninsured rates in many border counties are estimated to be above 30 percent and as high as 50 percent in certain communities.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission notes, ``The border is characterized by weaknesses in the border health

systems and infrastructure, lack of public financial resources, poor distribution of physicians and other health professionals and hospitals. Moreover, the low rates of health insurance coverage and low incomes puts access to health services out of reach for many border residents and thus keeps the border communities at risk.''

The U.S.-Mexico Border Commission has identified and approved of an agenda through its ``Health Border 2010'' initiative, which seeks to, among other things: reduce by 25 percent the population lacking access to a primary provider; reduce the female breast cancer death rate by 20 percent; reduce the cervical cancer death rate by 30 percent; reduce deaths due to diabetes by 10 percent; reduce hospitalizations due to diabetes by 25 percent; reduce the incidence of HIV cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases by 50 percent; reduce the incidence of hepatitis A and B cases by 50 percent; reduce the infant mortality rate by 15 percent; and increase initiation of prenatal care in the first trimester by 85 percent.

However, the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission lacks the resources that are needed to address those important goals. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Feinstein, and Cornyn would address that problem by reauthorizing the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission at $10 million and authorizing another $200 million in funding to improve the infrastructure, access, and the delivery of health care services along the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

These grants would be flexible and allow the individual communities to establish their own priorities with which to spend these funds for the following range of purposes: maternal and child health, primary care and preventative health, public health and public health infrastructure, health promotion, oral health, behavioral and mental health, substance abuse, health conditions that have a high prevalence in the border region, medical and health services research, community health worker or promotoras, health care infrastructure, including planning and construction grants, health disparities, environmental health, health education, and outreach and enrollment services with respect to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program,

Mr. President, our relationship with Mexico, like that with Canada, is a special one. Those countries are our closest neighbors, and yet, we often and wrongly neglect our neighbor to the South and the much needed economic development needed in the region. Mexico is the United States' second largest trading partner and the border is recognized as one of the busiest ports of entry in the world. And yet, the region is often neglected.

As the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission points out, ``Without increases and sustained federal, state and local governmental and private funding for health programs, infrastructure and education, the border populations will continue to lag behind the United States in these areas.'' If the border were its own state, according to data from the Heath Resources and Services Administration, it would: rank last in access to health care; second in death rates due to hepatitis; third in deaths related to diabetes; last in per capita income; first in the number of school children living in poverty; and, first in the numbers of the uninsured.

I would like to thank Senator McCain, who was the original cosponsor of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission legislation, Public Law 103-400, that we passed in 1994 and is the lead cosponsor of this legislation as well, for his outstanding leadership on border issues throughout his career. I would also thank Senators Feinstein and Cornyn for working with us on this important legislation and Senator Hutchison for her constant support for the appropriations of the U.S.-Mexico Border Commission upon the signed agreement between the United States and Mexico, which was signed by President Clinton on July 14, 2000.

I urge the adoption of this bipartisan legislation by this Congress.

I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President I will speak for a very few minutes on this same issue and indicate my strong support for the amendment Senator Byrd has offered.

As my colleague, Senator Harkin, indicated, I strongly support this amendment. I believe this is the obvious follow-on to the vote we had last week where 78 Members of the Senate agreed when appropriations bills did come to the Senate we would vote to fully appropriate the funds that were authorized in the United States Leadership Against HIV/ AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria Act of 2003. That was legislation we passed earlier this year that I strongly supported. It did provide $15 billion worth of funds. It authorized $15 billion worth of funding for this purpose. It was a follow-on to the President's State of the Union speech.

In the State of the Union speech, the President committed this country to this initiative. I strongly supported it. Then, as a follow- on to that State of the Union speech, we passed the authorizing legislation which, as I understood it, said we will appropriate $3 billion a year for 5 years in order to fight this terrible epidemic of infectious disease we see around the world.

From my perspective, the question is whether we consider this to be an urgent problem. If we do consider it to be an urgent problem, then I think the funding that was laid out in that authorization bill is the right funding. I was surprised to hear the quotations from the letter Dr. O'Neill has sent on behalf of the administration indicating the administration does not want $3 billion this first year, 2004. It does not want $3 billion the second year, 2005. And only in the later years is the administration going to be requesting $3 billion or more in order to make up the full $15 billion.

That would be an appropriate approach to a problem that is not urgent. That would be an appropriate approach to a problem we can just as well deal with 3 years from now as today. But this issue is not that type of problem. This is an urgent problem. Accordingly, I think it is entirely appropriate that we try to fund this AIDS initiative the way it was designed in the authorizing legislation, the way the President signed off on it in the authorizing legislation, and the way I thought all of us had agreed to proceed with it.

The statistics are devastating. We have gone through those to great lengths here, the number of teachers who are being lost because of HIV/ AIDS, the number of people who are going untreated with HIV/AIDS in Africa because of lack of resources. The global AIDS fund is desperately in need of additional resources. We have committed $200 million rather than the full $1 billion that was anticipated we would commit this year.

We can, obviously, fall back on a 5-year plan and say: Look, we never did intend to give you $3 billion the first couple of years. We are sorry if you misunderstood us. But the truth is most Members of Congress and I think most Members of the Senate--I certainly can speak for myself. When I voted for the authorizing legislation, I assumed we were going to appropriate the funds we were authorizing in that bill on that schedule in order to get to the $15 billion. That was my assumption.

I can understand the reluctance to take any funds out of the defense budgets. I have supported defense budgets virtually every year since I have been in the Senate. I intend to support the budget again this year. But this is a very small amount. This is funding which can readily be replaced in a supplemental. There will be a defense supplemental down the road. We have all talked about that. Most of the discussion in the last 2 days is how we have the defense supplemental coming. We have already passed one this year. We will have another one next year. This is a very appropriate place for us to identify some funds we can use for this urgent need.

In its January 2000 report, The Global Infectious Disease Threat and Its Implications for the United States, the CIA noted that over the next 20 years HIV/AIDS and associated diseases in sub-Saharan Africa would:

. . . kill up to a quarter of their populations . . . (and)

this will further impoverish the poor . . . and produce a

huge and impoverished orphan cohort unable to cope and

vulnerable to exploitation and radicalization.

The estimate predicted increased political instability and slower democratic development as a result of AIDS.

According to the World Bank:

The illness and impending death of up to 25 percent of all

adults in some countries will have an enormous impact on

national productivity and earnings. Labor productivity is

likely to drop, the benefits of education will be lost, and

resources that would have been used for investments will be

used for health care, orphan care, and funerals. Savings

rates will decline, and the loss of human capital will affect

production and the quality of life for years to come.

More than 30 percent of teachers are HIV positive in parts of Malawi and Uganda, 20 percent in Zambia, and 12 percent in South Africa. AIDS is killing people at middle and upper levels of management in both business and government; the trained personnel to replace them are not available.

Without a workforce, there is no productivity. Without productivity, a country's economy quickly deteriorates and the government collapses into chaos. All too often, terrorism and fanaticism springs forth from this chaos and begin to spread outwards from its birthplace, inflicting damage and destruction on other countries.

HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases.

AIDS has serious implications for issues of security in Africa, since HIV infection rates in many armies is extremely high. Domestic political stability is threatened when security forces become unable to perform their duties due to AIDS. Peacekeeping efforts on the part of more stable African nations are at risk as well as rates of infection among the peacekeeping troops grow. While he was in Nigeria last week, President Bush said:

We will not allow terrorists to threaten African peoples or

to use Africa as a base to threaten the world.

If we underfund the efforts to fight HIV/AIDS and its associated disease, we will be allowing just that.

The HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria pandemic in Africa is an international emergency. While visiting Botswana last week, President Bush declared:

This is the deadliest enemy Africa has ever faced, and you

will not face this enemy alone.

Congress conveyed the same message last week in passing an amendment that asserted its belief that nothing short of full funding for HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria should be appropriated. The Byrd amendment allows us to do just that, and to do so without cutting vital services to other international health programs. The funding to do this would result from a .079 percent cut for all programs and activities within Title III and Title IV. These two Titles are receiving $3 billion more in funding than President Bush requested in his budget for fiscal year 2004. The Byrd amendment allows full funding for international HIV/ AIDS, TB, and malaria programs. It allows the promise made to be a promise kept. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria are threats not just to the developing countries whose citizens have been ravaged by these diseases, but they are also threats to regional and international stability. AIDS, TB, and malaria claim the lives of 15,000 Africans each and every day. Every month that goes by in Africa, close to half a million people die from these diseases.

I hope very much we can support the amendment of Senator Byrd. I hope it will get the same 78 votes we got for the sense-of-the-Congress resolution last week when we talked about whether we were going to appropriate money on the same schedule and at the same level we had authorized money in the earlier legislation this year.

I commend the Senator from West Virginia for his amendment. I will certainly support it and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

I yield the floor.