Floor Statements

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

Mr. President, on April 26, 2003, more than 1,200 students from across the United States will visit Washington, DC to compete in the national finals of the We the People: The Citizen and the Constitution program, the most extensive educational program in the country developed specifically to educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Administered by the Center for Civic Education, the We the People program is funded by the U.S. Department of Education by act of Congress.

I am proud to announce that the class from Grace King High School from Metairie will represent the State of Louisiana in this national event. These young scholars, led by their teacher Jamie Staub, have worked conscientiously to reach the national finals by participating at local and statewide competitions. As a result of their experience they have gained a deep knowledge and understanding of the fundamental principles and values of our constitutional democracy.

The 3-day We the People national competition is modeled after hearings in the United States Congress. The hearings consist of oral presentations by high school students before a panel of adult judges on constitutional topics. The students are given an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge while they evaluate, take, and defend positions on relevant historical and contemporary issues. Their testimony is followed by a period of questioning by the judges who probe the students' depth of understanding and ability to apply their constitutional knowledge.

The class from Grace King High School is currently preparing for their participation in the national competition in Washington, DC. It is inspiring to see these young people advocate the fundamental ideals and principles of our Government, ideas that identify us as a people and bind us together as a nation. It is important for future generations to understand these values and principles, which we hold as standards in our endeavor to preserve and realize the promise of our constitutional democracy. I wish these young ``constitutional experts'' the best of luck at the We the People national finals.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a private bill on behalf of Tanya Andrea Goudeau and her family to grant Tanya immediate relative status. The Goudeaus adopted Tanya in 2001, but due to misinformation and an undue delay in the adoption process, the adoption was not completed until a week after Tanya's 16th birthday. As a result, Tanya was no longer considered a child under the law and therefore was not eligible to receive permanent resident status. Currently, Tanya faces deportation to Sri Lanka where she no longer has a family to care for her. What is more, she is now legally a part of the Goudeau family. Tanya is the Goudeau's daughter and they are her parents.

Tanya Goudeau was born to Mrs. Goudeau's sister in 1984 in Sri Lanka. During a visit with the Goudeaus in 1999 at their home in Baker, LA, Tanya's mother announced that she was moving and that she did not want any further contact with her daughter. Tanya's father had walked out on the family 11 years earlier and could not be located. The Goudeaus realized that Tanya had no family to return to and they decided to adopt her. They could not bear to send their niece back to her native home where she would be on her own at age 14. Without any children of their own, they lovingly took Tanya into their family and have lovingly cared for her for the past 4 years.

Tanya has overcome her mother's and father's abandonment and after a period of adjustment, she has grown to love her new home. She is currently a senior in high school with aspirations to earn an advanced medical degree. Without the passage of this private bill, Tanya could face deportation to Sir Lanka at a time when she should be focused on her college degree with the support of her parents. The Goudeaus' situation is an unintended consequence of the requirement to complete the adoption process before a child's sixteenth birthday. We need to grant Tanya immediate relative status to allow the Goudeaus to remain a family.

Mr. President, throughout the next month, hundreds of thousands of high school seniors across this Nation will open up their mailboxes and receive acceptance letters for college. They will begin planning where they will live and what they will study for the next 2 or 4 years. These students will dream big and have grand ideas about what college will mean for them, but before they can officially enroll, they will be slapped in the face with a very real question: how are they going to pay for it?

Attending an institution of higher education can be expensive. According to the National Center for Higher Education, the cost of attending two or four year, public and private colleges has increased faster than both inflation and family income. In 2000, families in the lowest quartile of the income bracket spent as much as 25 percent of their annual income to send their children to a public, four year college, compared with only 13 percent in 1980. At the same time, though, sources of federal assistance are diminishing. The Federal Pell Grant program, which was designed to help alleviate the financial burden on low income families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of tuition at public, four year colleges in 1999, whereas Pell Grants covered 98 percent of the costs in 1986.

As the cost of college increases and the impact of Federal grants decreases, school loans have become a gateway to attending college for the majority of students. However, because of a provision in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, entitled the ``Single Lender Rule,'' students who have all of their student loans from a single lender are barred from getting a lower rate by consolidating their loans with a different lender. The financial benefits for the consumer by using a different lender for loan consolidation are easily seen in other areas of finance, such as homeowners refinancing their mortgage. What appears to me to be an arbitrarily contrived limitation that protects lenders more than students has prevented college graduates from consolidating their multiple student loans into a single, new loan, thus driving up the cost of attending college.

Having a college degree is fast becoming a necessary pre-requisite to long-term success. That is why I rise today to introduce to my colleagues the ``Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003.'' This bill would repeal the Single Lender rule, and knock down this arbitrarily contrived barrier that hinders students from gaining access to higher education.

Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait to repeal the Single Lender rule when we readdress the Higher Education Act? As the close of this school year fast approaches, and high school graduates begin making important decisions about their educational future, we cannot put off the repeal of the Single Lender rule. The effects of maintaining the Single Lender rule are devastating. In 2001, 143,504 students were forced to pay higher rates on their student loans because the Single Lender rule denied them benefits of loan consolidation. Over 3,300 of these students were from my home State of Louisiana. We cannot force another class of college students to pay more for college than necessary. Studies have shown that a major factor influencing a student's choice of college and degree program is the amount of debt connected with the type of institution of profession. These choices greatly impact not only the lives of the students themselves, but also society as a whole. At a time when our society is in dire need of nurses, teachers, and many other professions, we must not frighten students away from college for fear of substantial debt burdens after their graduation.

The greatest investment we can make in our future is in the education of our children. Today, with the changing world, educating our children includes assisting those who desire to obtain a college degree. By not repealing the Single Lender rule, we will be continuing to drive up the cost of college, thus impeding access, especially for lower-income students. According to the Census Bureau, the income gap between people receiving a bachelor's degree and people receiving only a high school diploma has increased from 57 percent in 1975, to 76 percent in 2002. By financially hindering the entrance into college, we will be adding to this income gap, which only further hurts our already recessed economy.

The Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act is an important first step to making college more affordable for all American families. I hope and urge my colleagues to join me in making the dream of a college education a reality for all.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a private bill on behalf of Tanya Andrea Goudeau and her family to grant Tanya immediate relative status. The Goudeaus adopted Tanya in 2001, but due to misinformation and an undue delay in the adoption process, the adoption was not completed until a week after Tanya's 16th birthday. As a result, Tanya was no longer considered a child under the law and therefore was not eligible to receive permanent resident status. Currently, Tanya faces deportation to Sri Lanka where she no longer has a family to care for her. What is more, she is now legally a part of the Goudeau family. Tanya is the Goudeau's daughter and they are her parents.

Tanya Goudeau was born to Mrs. Goudeau's sister in 1984 in Sri Lanka. During a visit with the Goudeaus in 1999 at their home in Baker, LA, Tanya's mother announced that she was moving and that she did not want any further contact with her daughter. Tanya's father had walked out on the family 11 years earlier and could not be located. The Goudeaus realized that Tanya had no family to return to and they decided to adopt her. They could not bear to send their niece back to her native home where she would be on her own at age 14. Without any children of their own, they lovingly took Tanya into their family and have lovingly cared for her for the past 4 years.

Tanya has overcome her mother's and father's abandonment and after a period of adjustment, she has grown to love her new home. She is currently a senior in high school with aspirations to earn an advanced medical degree. Without the passage of this private bill, Tanya could face deportation to Sir Lanka at a time when she should be focused on her college degree with the support of her parents. The Goudeaus' situation is an unintended consequence of the requirement to complete the adoption process before a child's sixteenth birthday. We need to grant Tanya immediate relative status to allow the Goudeaus to remain a family.

Mr. President, throughout the next month, hundreds of thousands of high school seniors across this Nation will open up their mailboxes and receive acceptance letters for college. They will begin planning where they will live and what they will study for the next 2 or 4 years. These students will dream big and have grand ideas about what college will mean for them, but before they can officially enroll, they will be slapped in the face with a very real question: how are they going to pay for it?

Attending an institution of higher education can be expensive. According to the National Center for Higher Education, the cost of attending two or four year, public and private colleges has increased faster than both inflation and family income. In 2000, families in the lowest quartile of the income bracket spent as much as 25 percent of their annual income to send their children to a public, four year college, compared with only 13 percent in 1980. At the same time, though, sources of federal assistance are diminishing. The Federal Pell Grant program, which was designed to help alleviate the financial burden on low income families, covered only 57 percent of the cost of tuition at public, four year colleges in 1999, whereas Pell Grants covered 98 percent of the costs in 1986.

As the cost of college increases and the impact of Federal grants decreases, school loans have become a gateway to attending college for the majority of students. However, because of a provision in the 1998 re-authorization of the Higher Education Act, entitled the ``Single Lender Rule,'' students who have all of their student loans from a single lender are barred from getting a lower rate by consolidating their loans with a different lender. The financial benefits for the consumer by using a different lender for loan consolidation are easily seen in other areas of finance, such as homeowners refinancing their mortgage. What appears to me to be an arbitrarily contrived limitation that protects lenders more than students has prevented college graduates from consolidating their multiple student loans into a single, new loan, thus driving up the cost of attending college.

Having a college degree is fast becoming a necessary pre-requisite to long-term success. That is why I rise today to introduce to my colleagues the ``Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act of 2003.'' This bill would repeal the Single Lender rule, and knock down this arbitrarily contrived barrier that hinders students from gaining access to higher education.

Some of my colleagues may be asking, why now? Why not wait to repeal the Single Lender rule when we readdress the Higher Education Act? As the close of this school year fast approaches, and high school graduates begin making important decisions about their educational future, we cannot put off the repeal of the Single Lender rule. The effects of maintaining the Single Lender rule are devastating. In 2001, 143,504 students were forced to pay higher rates on their student loans because the Single Lender rule denied them benefits of loan consolidation. Over 3,300 of these students were from my home State of Louisiana. We cannot force another class of college students to pay more for college than necessary. Studies have shown that a major factor influencing a student's choice of college and degree program is the amount of debt connected with the type of institution of profession. These choices greatly impact not only the lives of the students themselves, but also society as a whole. At a time when our society is in dire need of nurses, teachers, and many other professions, we must not frighten students away from college for fear of substantial debt burdens after their graduation.

The greatest investment we can make in our future is in the education of our children. Today, with the changing world, educating our children includes assisting those who desire to obtain a college degree. By not repealing the Single Lender rule, we will be continuing to drive up the cost of college, thus impeding access, especially for lower-income students. According to the Census Bureau, the income gap between people receiving a bachelor's degree and people receiving only a high school diploma has increased from 57 percent in 1975, to 76 percent in 2002. By financially hindering the entrance into college, we will be adding to this income gap, which only further hurts our already recessed economy.

The Consolidation Student Loan Flexibility Act is an important first step to making college more affordable for all American families. I hope and urge my colleagues to join me in making the dream of a college education a reality for all.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

I thank the Senator from California. I particularly thank her for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senate. I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the Governor of Louisiana and a letter from Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections. Those documents substantiate the statement outlined by the Senator from California.

Mr. President, the Senator from California is absolutely correct, that even with the finest training, law enforcement, on the ground--and of which they are doing a better job every day--as they step up their training to address these new threats, all of that training is for naught if they cannot communicate with each other. There are some real challenges in our communication ability.

The Senator is absolutely correct, with just a small investment, the current communications systems could be made more operable.

I conclude by saying to the Senator from California that this was one of the first requests asked of the Mayor of DC and the city council here as they experienced the attack on September 11. It has been on the top of the list of law enforcement from Louisiana.

I am pleased to join her as a cosponsor. I thank her for her leadership.

Yes.

Mr. President, before I send my amendment to the desk, I want to take a point of personal privilege and comment on the remarks made by the Senator from Alaska and tell him how much I and many women and many men appreciate them. They were heartfelt and they were right on target, and they were sincere, and they were very meaningful on this day, as we all read about the extraordinary event of the last 48 hours in which this young soldier was rescued and returned safely to her unit and will be, ultimately, to her family.

As the first Democratic woman to ever serve on the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, following in the footsteps of Margaret Chase Smith; the Senators from Maine, Ms. Snowe and Ms. Collins, I am particularly appreciative of the support of the Senator from Alaska and other members who have, year after year, argued--and I think successfully, as the record will show--that women can most certainly make extraordinary contributions to the strength of our military in many different ways. We have all been proud as we have watched the level of contribution grow over time and, most certainly as this war unfolds before our eyes, we are reminded again of the continued bravery and skill and expertise of the women who are serving at the highest levels of our military and challenging the notions that women can serve but not on the front lines, or women can serve but not in this capacity, that women can serve but not here. I think those glass ceilings are shattering, and women are showing themselves to be, as we all know, the brave and courageous individuals who help us strengthen our military and strengthen every aspect of our national life.

I thank the Senator for his comments and for his leadership and add my own voice to the progress we are making on that issue.

Amendment No. 504

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration and a vote on it at whatever time the managers believe will be convenient.

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

Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been agreed to on both sides. I brought this issue up in committee and was asked specifically by the leadership to wait until the bill was before the Senate to discuss it. I understand the amendment has already been worked out.

It is an amendment that merely restates current law regarding the merchant marines. There is in this bill a very broad waiver that the President may furnish assistance under this heading, notwithstanding any provision of law, dealing with provision of aid, cargo, and supplies that we are sending to Iraq. I do not think it is the intention of the President to use this broad waiver to diminish or to circumvent current law regarding the merchant marines which would, of course, have the effect of giving a preference, and rightly so, to vessels sailing under the American flag with American crews.

As you understand and as the Senate is well aware, in the drafting of this amendment, there is an exception in the event of an emergency; there is an exception in the event that the particular cargo could be shipped at a less expensive price if the rates are not competitive. All four sections of the law that we cite in our amendment have national security waivers.

The cargo preference is only 50 percent, which gives the President the flexibility he needs in the event that a foreign carrier is necessary, and with DOD cargo, the President can also look at cost, as I said, to ensure that fair and reasonable rates are being charged.

I hope this amendment that Senator Mikulski and I offer for the consideration of the Senate will be accepted. It is very important for many reasons to support our merchant marines, particularly at a time when American taxpayers have really stepped up to the plate in their support of this war effort and will pick up a huge share of the reconstruction of Iraq. It only makes sense that we also extend and restate in this supplemental appropriations our intention not to waive, unless absolutely necessary, the current law regarding cargo shipments in this time of war and also post conflict.

At the appropriate time, I will ask for either a vote or the proper disposition of this amendment. It is very important to many Members of the Senate but is something that can be supported in a bipartisan way.

In additional support of this amendment, it does not cost anything. I know there are Members who say every amendment that has come to the floor has added money to the bill. This does not add any money to the bill. It is not offered to attempt to slow down the bill. It is simply offered to make sure that our merchant marines and the laws governing flags, the vessels, and the crews of the ships that will be carrying a lot of this cargo follow the law as it is today and only grant the waiver to the President and give him broad flexibility under certain guidelines unless there is an emergency or cost is involved.

At the appropriate time, I will ask for a vote.

Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk with a modification suggested by Senator Stevens.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia for yielding for a few moments because I understand this amendment has been worked out.

This amendment simply clarifies the underlying bill. It doesn't add a penny to the bill. It seeks to clarify the waiver given to the President that will mirror the current law regarding U.S. flagships. It doesn't add any new legislation to the law. It simply clarifies the general waiver provisions in the supplemental provision, that the same law in effect today will remain in effect for the Military Cargo Preference Act. I understand it has been agreed to. I submit the amendment for consideration.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Schumer amendment, but I also wanted to make a comment about the Specter amendment. I support the amendment of the Senators from New York and Maryland who are lead sponsors on this particular amendment. They are absolutely correct. We are not giving the resources that are necessary to first responders.

While the bill before us attempts in good measure to support the war underway, we always need to be prepared each and every day to fight the war on terrorism--which is broader than the battlefield in Iraq. The battlefield has now become in some sense the U.S. territory, and we need to do more faster. I realize we can't pay for every bill that is submitted, but we most certainly can do more than what we are doing. I intend to vote for the Schumer amendment.

I am not sure what I will do on the Specter amendment. I will say why. I think the offset is inappropriate. I understand there might be some consensus about the amendment of the Senator from Pennsylvania, but let me say what I object to strenuously in the amendment. To fund the high threat urban areas, a portion of the money, $150 million, is taken from State and local governments, and a portion is taken from critical infrastructure protection. So here, as a Senator from Louisiana, I have to now be forced to choose--these are tough votes and this is a job we asked for--because on one hand, I do want to add money to the overall pot, which the amendment does, but I want to call to the attention of my colleagues that part of the offset is taking it away from protection for pipelines, chemical plants, ports, and other critical infrastructure that could be described as highways, rail, et cetera, to support high urban threat areas.

It is a dilemma. I hope, however, it is resolved. Perhaps a better offset could be found in the conference report because I agree with Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton that we have to do more. I don't agree with the proposal put down by the Senator from Pennsylvania that to solve that problem, it needs to be taken from States such as Louisiana--perhaps Texas could find itself in the same situation-- having a tremendous amount of critical infrastructure to protect, which I might say to my colleagues in the Senate, supplies a tremendous amount of energy for the Nation. Those critical infrastructures are all over urban as well as rural parts of Louisiana. So I rise in support of the Schumer amendment, and with great reservations about the amendment offered by the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Will the Senator from Pennsylvania yield?

Mr. President, I wish to respond to the Senator from Pennsylvania because this is a very important debate. I thank him, first, for the effort he has made to try to bring some compromise to the issue.

I restate how difficult it is for some of us from some States that have serious needs of critical infrastructure. We supply 20 percent of the Nation's oil and gas. I have more pipelines in my State than any other State in the Union. We are happy to provide the energy. We have more chemical plants than Illinois, New Jersey, and other States. To ask us to be forced to say we don't really need money for that and we can give money to urban areas--the fact is, we need to give money to both, and to New York, Pennsylvania, New Orleans, as well as other places where pipelines run under very small communities.

I hope the Senator from Pennsylvania will take seriously--and I know he does--what point I am making and perhaps work as a member of the Appropriations Committee as this bill moves through to try to find an additional remedy so we don't have to get rural areas giving up their money for urban areas, or urban areas giving up their money for rural areas, and we can try to make fair allocations to protect all of the critical infrastructure in the Nation, whether it is in rural or urban areas.

I thank the Senator for his comments. I look forward to working with him as we try to provide additional funding for the critical structure that is necessary throughout many places in the South and in the industrial East.

Mr. President, I join my colleague from New Mexico in questioning the State Department's actions on the ATAP training programs. Both

universities and the surrounding communities have made substantial investments in facilities, curriculum, and even diplomacy in welcoming foreign law enforcement officers to their communities and providing them with training courses to help them combat terrorist and other criminal activity. Yet it appears the State Department will pull all ATAP training out of New Mexico Tech by this June. I can only guess that the State Department has similar intentions for LSU in my State.

I thank the Chairman for his direction on this matter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jason Matthews of my staff be allowed on the floor.

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

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

Mr. President, I come to the floor to support the supplemental appropriations bill that is before us because it is a bill that supports our troops, it strengthens our Nation, and it sends a very positive and I hope united signal that we are unified in support of our men and women on the battlefield and our men and women who are supporting our warriors on the battlefield.

We are acting as quickly and as deliberately as we can to debate and delve in some detail into a bill that is fairly significant in size, almost $75 billion. I support that effort.

I also say I support the course of this administration. I supported the use of force. I support the course of action we are on, a tough and aggressive action toward this rogue regime. I believe, as the political leadership of this Nation, leading the world in this effort, we need to continue our support, morally, spiritually, and politically as represented by the bills we pass in Congress.

Last week, Senator Durbin and I offered an amendment in a bipartisan partnership with Senator Warner and Senator Chambliss from Georgia. We received 100 votes for an amendment that would steer or direct some of the funding--a very small portion of the funding but funding very much needed by the Guard and Reserve--to the Guard and Reserve, which are picking up a larger share of the burden of this war, this campaign.

I am here today to offer another amendment that will support the 100- to-0 vote of last week to actually fund a portion of that amendment.

Last week, we said we wanted to raise the combat pay for Guard and Reserve and for Active military. I am pleased the Senator from Alaska has

worked out an arrangement that is going to actually make that possible. We have, I think, agreed on a doubling of the amount and have fit that within the framework of this bill. I know that is going to be received with gratitude and happiness on the part of the families who have their loved ones right there on the battlefront.

In addition to increasing the combat pay and the separation pay for all our Guard and Reserve units, I also think we need to do everything we can possibly do to send our Guard and Reserve on the battlefield with the equipment they need to win the war and to protect themselves, to stand up the American flag and be victorious in this effort. I am very concerned, as a member of the Appropriations Committee, as a former member of the Armed Services Committee, that our budgets do not reflect the commitment to our Guard and Reserve that their actions and their contributions warrant.

Let me quote the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Mr. Charles Cragin:

The nature and purpose of reserve service has changed since

the end of the cold war. They are no longer weekend warriors.

They represent almost 50 percent of the total force.

If we are not members of the Reserve ourselves or do not have family members in the Reserve, I am not sure we recognize the significant change that has occurred in the last 20 years in the makeup of our armed services. Mr. President, 45 percent of the total force is made up by our National Guard and National Reserve; 1.2 million men and women who serve as reservists today are being called up to an unprecedented extent.

He goes on to say:

We are currently calling reservists to duty involuntarily

under three separate Presidential orders: For Bosnia,

Kosovo, Southwest Asia. Thousands of reservists have

served with great distinction around the globe, including

more than 5,000 who recently deployed to Europe in support

of the air campaign over Kosovo.

Of course, this was several years ago. The bottom line is they are a significant part of the total force; weekend warriors no more.

Let me state for the Record the Center For Strategic and Budgetary Assessment says:

The reserve component represents 47 percent of our military

structure but consumes only 8.3 percent of the Department of

Defense budget.

There is a bias in the Department for the Active units. I am not saying one is more important than the other, but our budget needs to reflect the contributions that both the Active-Duty and the Guard and the Reserve are contributing, reflective of their contribution and their position in the total force. Our budget does not, today, do that.

My amendment attempts to add $1 billion. It is not going to bring the percentage up to where I believe it needs to be, but it is a step in that direction and it is something we can do right now. There is no reason to wait. The supplemental bill I hope to vote for--I am proud to vote for, I want to vote for--has $62 billion for Active Forces but only $271 million for the Reserve Force. Let me repeat, $62 billion for the Active Forces but only $271 million for the Reserve Forces. Yet every day, every night in America, the telephone rings in households in Louisiana, in Texas, in Mississippi, with a commanding officer saying: ``Sir or Ma'am, report for duty. You will get your orders when you arrive. Please make arrangements.''

Do you know what those arrangements are that the Guard and National Reserve make? They write their wills. They kiss their spouses goodbye. They tell their children goodbye. They call all the friends they went to school with to tell them goodbye because they may not see them again.

Those are the arrangements that are made when that telephone rings. Yet this budget that is supporting that effort fails to give them the equipment and support they need.

I know that is a strong statement. But the facts support that statement. This Senate and House have a responsibility to begin to fix that. We can fix it. We have $65 billion. My amendment asks to add $1 billion. I am prepared to take it out of the $65 billion. We are prepared to add it. We are prepared to find an offset. But to continue to ask our Guard and Reserve to make arrangements--perhaps we should make arrangements to provide them the equipment they need to fight a war we are asking them not only to fight but to win.

If people say, Senator, let's just wait until the 2004 budget, I can tell you it is not any better. We are going to spend $400 billion on defense, but a meager $1.9 billion is devoted for Guard procurement. That means we are prepared as a nation to spend less than the cost of one submarine for all the equipment needs of nearly 50 percent of our troops.

That does not make any sense. When we talk about force protection and minimizing casualties, you don't have to be an expert in warfare to understand one of the ways you can minimize casualties is to give your Guard and Reserve the best training and the best equipment, so when they ship out, they have a chance to ship back.

I am going to spend a few minutes. I wish I had more time because I want to talk about the thousands of men and women who are called up, State by State, so when people come down in a few minutes to vote on this amendment, they will know exactly how many families they are voting for in their districts and their States, and how many families they are voting against.

Let's start with the States that have over 50 percent of their forces called up: Alabama, 5,961. This is a portion of the forces. That means the telephones rang in 5,961 houses and a voice said, ``We need you. Close your business. Leave your employment. Make your will. Tell your wife, your spouse goodbye. Hug your children. Tell your family goodbye, and we will let you know when to ship off.'' These people are gone. And then there are going to be thousands more who are called up.

In Washington State: 4,066. In my home State of Louisiana, which is over, I think, 35 percent: 2,328.

Now, this is the number of personnel mobilized out of the Army Guard. This isn't all of the Reserve components. And we are trying to get a handle on those numbers. Some of those numbers are classified for obvious reasons.

But suffice it to say, they are not showing up for a weekend of work in Iraq. They are going for 6 months or for a year.

Some people say, ``Senator, you don't need equipment for the Guard and Reserve because they get the equipment when they go over there.''

Let me ask you, on the television that we have seen, just think about what the visuals have been about the war. Have we seen any tanks that don't have people in them? Have we seen any armored vehicles just sitting there waiting for a driver? Because that is not true. The truth is, the soldier shows up with his rifle, with his uniform, with his chemical detection equipment. The planes have to have the radar on them already. They have to show up with their equipment to fight the battle. And we are not funding the Guard and Reserve at the level we should.

I want to tell my people in Louisiana, when that phone rings, their Senator was on this floor fighting for them to have this equipment. And the argument is, ``Well, they can't buy it in 30 days, so we can't put it in this bill.'' And then the next time we have a bill, they will say, ``We can't buy it in 30 days, so let's not put it in that bill.'' And then the next time we have an appropriations bill, it is going to be the same story.

I am saying today, as we call up 100,000 more troops, half of whom are going to be Guard and Reserve, please, let's give them the equipment they need to win the war. And that is what my amendment does.

I have talked to the chairman. I have asked the chairman. We could add the money. We can take it out of the $65 billion. We can offset the money that is going to Turkey, $1 billion. I would rather send it to the Reserves. I don't want to cut it in half, but I am willing to compromise. But to tell our Guard and Reserve, no, I just am not willing to do it.

I want to list some of the items this money will buy. A great many of these items do not take a great amount of time to order. You could pick up the phone and dial it and ask them to deliver it. Let me just give you a couple of examples in the few minutes that I have.

The collective protection fund would be used to procure collective protection shelters for deployed forces in the event that chemical and biological weapons are fired on them. They would have a shelter to protect themselves.

Skin exposure reduction paste, I am sure someone produces that and manufactures it now. It is not something we have to invent. All they have to do is pick up the phone and order it. The skin is exposed, and it helps them against chemical warfare agents.

Increased resources will be used to procure additional mobile chemical agent detectors for use by forces performing the mission of determining whether weapons of mass destruction are present. How will they know if they don't have the equipment to detect it? And there are some things that are classified in this list that I cannot speak to.

I think our Active Forces would agree with this amendment. I think our Active Forces realize how important the Guard and Reserve are, what capable soldiers they are. And some units are better trained than others. I understand that. And some States have it better organized than others.

I happen to represent a State that has one of the finest National Guards in the Nation. I guess I am so proud of them, I want to do my very best by them, and to say we are doing a disservice by having $62 billion in this bill for Active Forces and we have added up only $271 million for Reserve Forces. Yet almost 50 percent of the men and women fighting the war are in the Guard and Reserve.

It just does not make sense. And perhaps it was an oversight. I do not think anyone means--I ask unanimous consent for 3 more minutes.

I do not think anyone means harm to the Guard and Reserve. And I know that every Member of the Senate is most certainly patriotic and wants to do their best. But I have spoken about this in meetings. I had to bring it to the Senate floor to give it attention. And I must ask for a vote because, that way, then people can go on the Record, and they can then be on the Record explaining to these 5,000 families why we could support these billions of dollars of equipment for the Active Forces and shortchange our Reserves.

I know that is not the intention of the Chair. And I would not in any way say he does not have an extremely difficult job of managing this bill. And I have no intention of holding up the bill. But I thought it was only fair to offer this amendment, to speak for 20 minutes, to ask for the money that I think our Guard and Reserve need.

So when the phone rings in Louisiana, and the Smith family or the James family or the Fonteneau family or the Thibodeaux family is called, they can say our Senator did her very best to try to convince people that maybe there was a slight imbalance in the money that was given for the Actives versus the Reserves, and that she is not sending my son, my husband, my wife, my grandmother, or my grandfather out there, at a loss to his or her income, a sacrifice to the family, without the equipment he or she needs to fight a war we asked them to fight, which is what we are doing in Iraq.

So I offer my amendment. I ask for support. I am sorry if the leadership cannot support this amendment, but I am going to ask for a vote. And I will continue, every time there is an appropriations bill on this floor--whether it is a supplemental appropriations or whether it is part of our next year's budget--I will continue to say, if 47 percent of our force fighting the war today--not next week; today--are Guard and Reserve, don't they deserve more than 8 percent of the money we are sending to support the war.

I say that answer is yes. And I want the families in Louisiana to know that I get it, I understand it, and I don't want them to put their lives in any more danger than what is absolutely necessary.

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Madam President, will the Senate be in order?

I thank the Chair.

This is a very important amendment, and I ask my colleagues to consider carefully their vote. Last week, we voted 100 to 0 in a bipartisan fashion to support an increase in combat pay for Active and Reserve and to increase the funding for necessary equipment for our Guard and Reserve. This amendment adds $1 billion to this bill for a very good reason: Because the Reserve component represents 47 percent of our military structure and only 8.3 percent of the budget. In the underlying bill, we have $62 billion for Active and $271 million for the Reserves.

In every State, thousands of people are being called up. When they get the call, they put on their uniform and go. This amendment gives them the equipment to fight and win the war. I ask for everyone's support.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.

Is the Senator from Arizona suggesting the $6 billion that is on the list for the Reserves has not gone through the regular order?

With all due respect to the Senator from Arizona, I am a member of the Appropriations Committee, and this $6 billion has gone through, and we are asking $1 billion of the $6 billion.

Mr. President, on March 26, NATO signed the Protocols on the Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania. This is an important step toward the full membership in NATO for these countries. Soon, the Senate will debate whether to approve admission for these seven new and vibrant democracies. These countries have thrown off the shackles of communism. They are pressing forward, and I am confident their admission to NATO will only make that great alliance stronger and more robust.

The enlargement process presents a historic opportunity for NATO to strengthen security and peace, as well as a significant step toward fulfilling the vision of a Europe whole and free. The new members have proved willing and capable of adding value to NATO's missions, and they strongly reinforce the importance of a trans-Atlantic link.

The aspirant members have long contributed to NATO and allied missions, and they will bolster similar NATO and allied operations in the future. They have provided logistical support and troops in combat or peace support missions in Western Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Romania, for example, currently has over 1,300 troops engaged in allied missions, including a combat battalion that carries out operations shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and a NBC unit in Iraq. Additionally, the Romanian Government will shelter up to 1,500 war refugees from Iraq if needed. Romania and Bulgaria are currently providing host nation support at the Black Sea airbase and seaport bases. Moreover, Slovakia and the Baltic countries have provided peacekeeping troops, air surveillance support, as well as NBC specialists.

I look forward to the debate in the U.S. Senate on ratification of the protocols for NATO expansion. NATO expansion will prove beneficial to those countries seeking entrance to NATO and the those countries already in the alliance.

Mr. President, I know that my friends and colleagues, Senator Grassley from Iowa and Senator Baucus from Montana, share my concerns about the safety and welfare of our troops in the field and their families at home. With the deployment of the 389th Engineer Battalion and the 106th Aviation Unit from the Iowa Guard and 495th Transportation Company and 411th Support Detachment from the Montana Guard, no one can doubt that the people of the Hawkeye and Big Sky States are making very important contributions to our national defense.

However, I wonder if my friends saw the article in the Washington Post on March 4, entitled ``Called-Up Reservists Take Big Hit in Wallet; Families Struggle on Military Salary.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

This Post story captures the reality of reservists who are called to war and are asked to make the double sacrifice of enormous pay cuts to serve their country.

Because of stories like these in my home State, and across the country, I introduced S. 442, the Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act. This bill would provide a tax credit to employers who take the patriotic step of covering the difference between their employee's pay and as a civilian, and their pay as a soldier. The tax cut would cover 50 percent of the amount, and last for 1 year. Additionally, the Senate just passed a budget resolution that calls for $350 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. Certainly, we should ensure that there is room in this tax cut to both promote economic growth and benefit the men and women in uniform willing to risk their lives in defense of this great Nation.

As the chairman and ranking member know, I have been a strong supporter of Senate Bill 351, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. It contains a provision that I introduced as separate legislation relating to dependent care benefits for military personnel, and I very much appreciate Senator Grassley's and Senator Baucus' effort to include these provisions in the bill.

However, I think it would be a terrible mistake to ignore this looming question that affects so many Reservists and Guardsmen, especially after agreeing to $350 billion in tax cuts. S. 442 is both stimulative and necessary for the men and women on the front lines, as well as their families back at home. So, I ask my friends, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, can anything be done to address this problem?

Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's offer and the ranking member's offer, and look forward to working with them to include this important legislation in the reconciliation bill this year.

Mr. President, our Nation has always risen to the challenges of war. During such times, Congress has spared no expense to make sure that our dedicated armed services personnel have everything they need to fight and win. We will always meet this obligation.

But the men and women on the battlefield have families back home and there is more that we can do for them. I am talking about the families of the troops from Barksdale, Belle Chasse, and Fort Polk in Louisiana, as well as our guardsmen from all across the State. Every one of my colleagues represents military families. We need to make sure that we support them as well.

That is why today I would like to add my voice of strong support for the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. I congratulate Senator Grassley, the Finance Committee chairman, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member, for bringing this bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.

This bill contains several provisions that would reduce taxes for members of our armed services. The bill would clarify that childcare benefits provided to military personnel are to be excluded from income, a provision based on legislation that I introduced earlier in this Congress, S. 235. In addition, the bill excludes all death gratuity payments from the income of surviving family members. Military and Foreign Service personnel would receive capital gains tax relief when they have to sell a home and move because of reassignment or deployment orders. National Guard and Reserve members would receive an above-the- line deduction for overnight expenses when they travel more than 100 miles from home to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings. There are other important provisions in this bill that give needed tax relief to our families.

I had hoped to include language in this bill to give a much-needed tax break to the employers for Reserve personnel. When a reservist gets called up, as many have, to go fight in Iraq, employers have to keep his or her job open, but do not have to pay a salary to the reservist while they are gone. This can cause an extreme hardship on a reservist's family. While the reservist receives military pay, in many cases this is much less than their civilian pay. Some employers, but not all, will pay the difference between the civilian and military pay, but they do not receive any benefit for this act of patriotism. I introduced S. 442, the Reservist and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act, to give a 50 percent tax credit to these patriotic employers.

I regret that we were not able to include my bill in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. But I deeply appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their commitment to address my tax credit proposal in the future reconciliation package. I look forward to working with them.

Again our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families deserve our support. For all these reasons and more, this legislation deserves to pass. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Mr. President, in just a few moments as we get underway to debate a series of amendments to the budget bill, I am going to be offering an amendment. Under the rules, I will have just a minute to speak on it, so I thought I would take this time while we are getting organized to describe a little more detail about the Landrieu amendment regarding the Guard and Reserve.

There have been any number of articles--I see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee here, and he is well aware of this--there have been any number of articles written as of late about the tremendous weight the National Guard and Reserve are carrying in our current war against terror, whether it be the campaign underway in Iraq, the supporting of a civilian government in Afghanistan, the carrying out of our missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, or guarding the homefront right here; whether it is in New Orleans or Baton Rouge or sites in Maryland or Virginia or your home State, Mr. President, or overseas.

The Guard and Reserve are doing a magnificent job. These are men and women who maybe served part of their time in the military for a few years and then, because of other family commitments or other calls on their talents, went into the private sector. Some of them started their own businesses. They come from a wide range of backgrounds. You yourself, Mr. President, served in the National Guard and Reserve. There are several Members of Congress who have not only carried out their job here, serving as Member of Congress, but also serve in this capacity.

You are to be commended. I know you have spoken out, Mr. President, on many instances about the problems that are arising in the sense that we are calling on the National Guard and Reserve over and over again. Their deployments are longer and our compensation to them, our benefit package to them, the way we supply them equipment, in my opinion--and an opinion that I think you share and is shared on both the Republican and Democratic sides--is not supportive to the degree that they, basically, are supporting us. I guess I could put it that way.

We ask these men and women to go for longer deployments, more frequent deployments, and not only put their life on the line but their livelihood on the line. We need to keep up our commitment on the benefit compensation end, on the financing side. In a moment--I know I only have a minute or so--whenever the leadership feels it appropriate for my amendment to be taken up, I am going to suggest we make a very modest change in the budget submitted to us by the President. Of course, there are parts of that budget I support. There are some parts that I think could be improved. That is what the amendment process is all about.

This is one of those areas that I think can be improved, to take $10 billion out of the tax cut portion that is not the stimulative part but the unreconciled portion of the tax cut, and add basically $1 billion a year over 10 years to provide critically needed equipment for our Guard and Reserve units.

There are two units now that are being forward deployed to Iraq that, under the President's budget as submitted--and I believe one unit is from Georgia and one unit, I say to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is from Virginia--those units will be decommissioned. There is not even enough money in the current budget we are debating to keep those units fighting and forward.

That is what my amendment attempts to do. It adds money. I would like to get more, but we are trying to be reasonable in this request because the Guard is really carrying a tremendous weight. They are happy to do it. They are proud to serve. They are not whining and complaining. But we should be supporting them. I think that is what we should be about today.

I thank you for letting me explain the Landrieu amendment. At the appropriate time, it will come up in the list of amendments. But now, more than ever, we are depending on them. Let us let them know they can depend on us.

Will the Senator yield?

Will the Senator yield for a moment?

I will take those 25 seconds, if I could.

Mr. President, I thank the leadership for this discussion. I think it has been helpful. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion a remedy. But at the appropriate time, I will insist on a vote on this amendment because in order for us to put a budget together, we have to have some money reserved for all of these changes that we are talking about.

I hope, over the course of the day, we can come to some resolution so that the Guard and Reserve can depend on something in this budget.

I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Durbin, Senator Warner, and Senator Chambliss, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Stabenow and Senator Lincoln be added as original cosponsors.

Madam President, I thank my colleagues and particularly Senator Durbin for his work in working out this amendment. It is for the Guard and Reserve units that have been called up.

This amendment is crucial. It is important that we adopt it for a number of reasons. No. 1, from 1945 to 1990, a period of 45 years, our Guard and Reserve units were called up four times. In the last 13 years they have been called up eight times. They represent a growing and necessary component of our force protection for our Nation, both abroad and at home.

Unfortunately, our commitment to their budget has not kept up with the contributions they are making. This amendment attempts to begin to fill that gap.

I submit for the Record, because this is a $1 billion amendment, a list of equipment needs that could be provided by this amendment. I suggest the $1 billion could be for this or something comparable to it. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

This amendment is supporting the Guard and Reserve for equipment, as well as for pay and compensation, and Senator Durbin will explain the second part of this amendment.

Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity.

Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today.

Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State.

There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today.

First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service.

FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana.

To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail.

My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity.

A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent.

Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions.

Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment.

The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail

customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent.

What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State.

To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress.

Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities.

Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities.

Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power.

In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.