Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to speak about my friend, Senator Strom Thurmond. I do not have any prepared remarks but I want to speak for a few moments about Senator Strom Thurmond.

Senator Strom Thurmond spent many, many years sitting in the seat, for those observing the Senate Chamber, right next to the seat where the distinguished majority leader is sitting right now.

I have eight children. Senator Thurmond, as everyone knows, lived a very long life with his first wife without children. I don't know if that had anything to do with his huge interest in asking people such as me how my children were, and I am not one who is very loathe to tell people about my children's successes.

So he used to say to me, and to anyone around, he would point at me, and say: ``There is the Senator with all the smart kids.'' Of course, I was embarrassed, and I would bend down and say: ``Senator, there are lots of Senators with smart children.''

Then he would say: ``Well, you told me about one'' . . . and he would explain what I told him. He would ask, ``how is that one doing?''

Well, obviously, those days are gone now. I was privileged, with my wife Nancy, to go to the wedding of his daughter here in this town not too many years ago. It was a beautiful wedding, a big wedding. It was a beautiful daughter and a beaming father, Strom Thurmond.

He was already past 90, for certain, and how thrilled he was to walk down the aisle and to be part of the normal wedding activities.

I note that with all the blessings he has received in his life, and all the legacy that he leaves, he got one blessing that he deserved; that is, that wedding and that marriage yielded his first grandchild. And I just wonder because he had already left the Senate; he was no longer here; he was in a hospital, but I just wonder, how happy that day must have been for him. He had a grandchild at that very old age.

There are Senators, such as from his home State, who have known him through campaigns and actions and activities that I hear of. I have read of these activities, but I did not participate in them, so they will do better than I in talking about him. But I am 71. I am very lucky, I feel, in that I have spent 31 years in the Senate. The only thing I did prior to that is, 6\1/2\ years before I came here, I accepted a dare from a group of friends to run for an office. I ran and got elected. And that office was for city council, which put me in a mayorship of sorts in our biggest city.

So you know, if you write down, at 71, what I have done: I ran for a nonpartisan office, got elected, served 4 years, waited 2 years, got elected to the Senate, and came here. But we all know, if we are going to put down what Strom Thurmond has done as a public servant, all of which clearly is one's legacy, it would take me quite a while to discuss it all. Just his military career would be a rather good speech and a rather good talk on the Senate floor.

The other thing that, to me, is of such rare, rare importance is that when you consider 100 years, and that 80 or 79 of those years he was an adult, you just think of all the things that have changed during his adulthood. Governance, governmental changes, cultural changes, philosophical leanings and tendencies of our great country changing. You have to conclude that this man, who represented a State that also changed and had become a great industrial State, and a great educational State, with fantastic educational institutions, that this great man also learned how to change. He changed with time, not changing in the sense of giving up but rather of gaining more for himself and becoming more rather than becoming less.

Now, I have known a lot of great Senators, more than most, because there are only five or six Senators who have been here longer than I, as of today, maybe five. So I have known a lot of them. I think it is only fair to say, for his family, for Nancy, for his children, there really have never been any Senators like him that I have been privileged to know.

He was indeed unique. He was so different that you cannot forget him. First, he was so personal to everyone. He was never forgetting. He was always considerate. He spent more time and effort at little things.

I know nothing about his constituent work. Let those who know speak. I speak of little things here in the Senate. The Chair and I both watched during a week at the end of a day's work, we watched Strom Thurmond while he was still around and healthy and walking. We watched what he did. He went with his staff from one event to another, perhaps three, four, five events an evening, because he had been invited and because it was somebody who said: ``Would you come to my party?'' ``Would you come to my fundraiser?'' ``Would you come to my birthday?'' ``Would you come and join me; we have visitors from my State.'' What it was that made him that kind of person, who knows? I don't know. You don't know. The Senate doesn't know. I am not sure his family knows. But the truth is, we know he did that.

All of these would appear, what I have said so far, to be things that one might say are not very important.

Well, I stated them because I think they are very important. They are of utmost importance. I think they are the essence of who he is and what he is and what he was.

But don't let anyone think he didn't do his work. When you look at the committees he chaired, the events that happened during those chair- filled years, be it on the Judiciary, on Armed Services, or whatever, you have to know he had a great capacity for work and he did his work and got it done.

Can you just imagine not having a chance to know him when he was a judge? What a great judge he would have been. Can you imagine, not having a chance to know him, what a good school superintendent he must have been? Can you imagine not getting to know him, what a good commissioner he must have been at the local level where he governed? For I believe he is what he was. And it is probable that he took care to do everything right and he took care to be concerned and worried about people, as he did his job, and that he never forgot the people who were good to him and meant something to his success.

I, for one, am very sorry we will be going to a funeral. But, I guess it is really only fair to say that he has been very blessed. After all, we won't, any of us, ever go to a funeral for a fellow Senator who has lived 100 years--none of us. This will be the only one. Because he has been very, very blessed. The Lord has been kind and decent to him. Those around him should be very proud. Obviously, his kinfolk are sad.

I remember at that wedding, while we were celebrating youth, his daughter was a young lady. I remember meeting his sister, two sisters I believe. They were alive and there. I don't mean to cast any aspersions about the fact they were alive. They were lively, I assure you. They knew a lot. They were talking. They were carrying on conversations. Strom Thurmond was talking with them about us and my wife Nancy.

They were quick to ask us to sit down, and you could hardly believe that a man almost 100 was there with sisters at a wedding for a very young daughter of his, who has just since then had his first grandchild. What a beautiful, beautiful tribute all of this is to Strom Thurmond's family, to their heritage, and to those around them and those who love them.

My wife Nancy and I extend our heartfelt condolences to Nancy and all of the other kinfolk, to his relatives, and clearly to his daughter and son-in-law who have that young grandchild of whom he must be so proud.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Thursday, July 10 at 10 a.m., in Room SH- 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the reasons behind the high price of natural gas, its affect on the economy and to consider potential solutions.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC, 20510-6150.

For further information, please contact Scott O'Malia at 202-224- 2039.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on July 22, 2003, at 10 a.m., on issues related to forest health problems in our Nation's forests.

The Committee will examine impacts of insects, disease, weather- related damage, and fires on public and private forest lands. Processes for implementing forest health and hazardous fuels reduction projects on public and private lands will also be examined. Witnesses will be requested to suggest changes needed to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of projects to reduce hazardous fuels and to combat the spread of insects and disease infestations. The Committee will also consider S. 1314, the Collaborative Forest Health Act; H.R. 1904--the Healthy

Forest Restoration Act, as well as other related legislation that addresses these issues.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, SD-364, Washington, DC 20510-6150 prior to the hearing date.

For further information, please contact Frank Gladics (202-224-2878) or Meghan Beal (202-224-7556).

Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment. I believe it is absolutely fair and nothing more than simple equity. We have had an asset test under Medicaid, which applies here, since 1988. It is $4,000. That means there is an income test and an asset test of $4,000. I believe the time has come to change that $4,000 to something more reasonable--not gigantic, just $10,000. It says the income test still applies, but you can own assets up to $10,000.

It also says you do not have to fill out all kinds of forms. You can sign an affidavit under penalty of felony, as to what your assets are, and that suffices. If there is anything this bill needs it is simplicity. So this adds simplicity to this form. But most of all, for the poor people, it permits them to own a car today. You know, hardly any cars are worth less than $4,000. I think you can be poverty stricken and still own an automobile.

I believe the amendment should be adopted.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about this legislation. Perhaps some will not recognize my speech at all because I know there is $12 billion to be resolved, and I understand it is going to be resolved. I am speaking as if we have finished our work and we are going to vote. I am here to tell the Senate and anybody interested why I am going to vote for this legislation.

First of all, we need prescription drugs for our senior citizens.

Secondly, we have a situation, of which I am absolutely positive. From what I have heard, if I were attending the meetings in the Democratic caucus, I would hear the Democratic Senators who are informed on the subject stand up and talk about how bad this bill is. I would hear them say that it does not do enough, that it does not take care of enough poor people, that it does not have enough choice, and that all the seniors who are currently on Medicare are expected leave and go somewhere else. That is not any good.

And just as sure as that is going on, and I have inquired before making this speech if that is the case, I go to our Republican caucuses, and I hear one Senator after another speak about the shortcomings of this bill. Some speak about it with a clear-cut: ``I am not going to vote for it.'' But many speak of it in terms of: ``I just want to let you know how bad I think it is. I don't want to talk you out of it, I just want to tell you how bad it is.'' One Senator after another, then another: ``I just want to tell you how bad it is. It just won't work.''

Then somebody else on this side begins speaking about it from fiscal policy, and they say: ``It is going to cost too much. It is going to break us.'' And there are Senators in the other caucus saying: ``We are not reforming the Medicare system, and it's going to go broke. We are just adding more debt to that system.'' Now again, I have not been there, but I asked.

Then I go to our caucus, and I hear the same thing: ``The Medicare system is already somewhat bankrupt. It is not going to have sufficient money in a few years. We are going to have to start finding money for it somewhere. And this is going to add, some say, $4.5 trillion.'' That is what we have been hearing in our caucus. Some are saying: ``No, I don't want you not to vote for it, but I just want to tell you about all these problems.''

I want to tell you I am going to vote for it because I am a hope- filled Senator. I am hope filled about the future of the American economy and American prosperity. I am hope filled about American ingenuity, American breakthroughs, American science achievements, and American wellness achievements. I want to tell you about why I am hopeful.

First, we have mapped the human genome system during our lifetime. This means that we currently know where the aberrations in the human genome system are, and where all of the major diseases lie within the chromosome system of the human anatomy. That is an unheard of achievement.

Why do I speak of it while I try to talk about Medicare and prescription drugs? Because we are not living in a stagnant world. We are not living in a world that during the next 10 or 15 or 20 or 30 years that we are going to have just what we have today in terms of wellness, in terms of prescription drugs, in terms of curing illnesses. We are in the midst of the most gigantic breakthroughs in wellness. We are in the midst of breakthroughs in terms of finding cures to all kinds of human ailments and all kinds of drug breakthroughs which are going to cure people and make them well. There sits that breakthrough called the mapping of the human genome system.

At the same time we are passing this bill, science is far from stagnant. There is going on in science today something called nanoscience. Nanoscience involves the actual manipulation of atoms to create new systems and new products. While we are wondering if we are going to be able to afford this drug system we are currently putting in place, out there in all kinds of centers of higher learning, American scientists and scientists in the rest of the world are developing technology involving the manipulation of atoms to create new systems and new products.

I believe within 15 to 20 years there will be so many new products and things that will be manufactured and made that will add to the productivity of America. I mention it because it makes my vote tomorrow on this bill hope filled. I believe there are going to be productivity changes, there are going to be drug cures, there are going to be medicinal cures, there will be wellness cures. All of these things are going to happen because we are not going to be living in a stagnant system. We are going to deliver under this prescription drug bill the drugs our people need; principally with the money going to the poorest, who need the most help, and then moving it upwards so that those who are least in need will get the least help.

While we have Senators on each side finding fault with the proposal, which probably means it is pretty good, we also find them saying: ``We can't afford it.''

I am here to suggest we can afford it. As a matter of fact, I am here to say we can't afford not to do it. I am here to say with all the breakthroughs that are going to occur, we must put in place a system that is more apt to take advantage of those breakthroughs. I believe the distinguished leader of the Senate who has spoken on this subject is correct. If we have these HMOs and PPOs and these delivery systems, they are more apt to take advantage of the breakthroughs that are going to occur because of nanoscience, because of the genome, and then because there is also a huge new system called microtechnologies. Microtechnologies, believe it or not, are going to create all kinds of tiny little engines, engines that are going to be able to do all kinds of things that make products and solve problems and cure health problems.

The microtechnology system means that little tiny engines will be produced on a chip just like the chip that we now talk about. There will be engines on that chip. And, if you look at that chip with a microscope, you will actually see little engines working. Those engines may, indeed, be put in the human body to go after certain ailments and just take them on as little engines. And the illnesses will disappear or perhaps be ameliorated.

All of these things are going to happen. Nobody at the CBO, nobody at the other agencies who have evaluated whether we will be able to pay for this bill and whether we will be able to deliver on this bill, have figured in those kinds of gigantic breakthroughs that are going to occur in this American system. In fact, none of them are figuring the productivity breakthroughs that are going to occur, in this Senator's opinion, from nanoscience and microtechnology breakthroughs. Nor are they taking into consideration breakthroughs on the medicinal side that will result from our continuation of funding the NIH at about 10- percent growth a year.

I add one caveat. If I were voting on this bill and were asked, ``What should you do in addition to this bill?'' I would adopt a resolution that would require mandatory funding of the physical sciences at about 10 percent a year just like we did the NIH for the next 10 years. Then you would have the great instruments of breakthrough--the NIH, the National Institutes of Science, plus American ingenuity and business. You would have the physical sciences funded at a much higher rate than we are funding them so that nanoscience and the others I have spoken of can have their breakthrough day. So that we can, in fact, deliver what we plan to deliver under this bill.

I close where I started, by saying: For all intents and purposes, the bill is finished. It is probably not perfect, but no democracy can draw a perfect bill. It is probably better than those who are saying how bad it is, and it is probably slightly worse than those who are running around saying how great it is. But it is pretty good in terms of a delivery system that can get us started and that we can always change.

I don't fear the fact that we have a large group of Americans coming along, the generation that we are worried about, the baby boomers. I am not concerned about how we are going to pay for them and how we are going to take care of them. I believe the breakthroughs I have just discussed generally will be specific breakthroughs that will be occurring rapidly in large numbers, every year for the next 20 to 30 years. I believe that 20 years from now we will not recognize the prescription drugs being delivered today. We will not recognize what the drugs are being delivered to cure, and what they are curing because we will have made so many changes. And, almost all of these changes will be for the positive. By applying human ingenuity, human knowledge, human capacity to such basic research as the human genome or the mapping of the chromosomes and the aberrations on the chromosomes which create diseases, we are going to find cures so that we won't have to be paying the drug costs because we will have found the cures for the sicknesses.

I thought it would be a good 15 minutes, maybe 10, while we had a few lax moments, to at least let one Senator put some comments in the record that sort of set the tone for what he will be thinking about when he votes on this rather celebrated bill. I will be thinking about all the people we are going to help today, tomorrow, and next year. But I will also be thinking about all the changes that are going to occur because of these great sciences that I have just spoken of. We won't recognize what we are taking care of in 10 years. We won't recognize what medicines we are delivering. We won't recognize what diseases we are curing. And, frankly, it is entirely possible that we won't recognize the hospital system that we have delivering hospital care to our people if, in fact, the genome system really works as some people think it will.

Some are saying within 20 to 40 years we won't even have hospitals like the ones we have. There will be different kinds of institutions that will be delivering health care because of the capacity of the genome system to deliver health care in a completely different way. I hope that these words at least are helpful. They are to this Senator. They make me feel that I have something to say beyond coming down here and reading a bunch of numbers, which I used to have to do ad nauseam when I was chairman of the Budget Committee, and try to make all kinds of predictions on how you are going to have enough money for this, that, or the other thing.

To tell you the truth, this program is a close call in terms of whether we are going to be able to pay for it. It might be a close call as to whether it is the best program we can put together. But I tell you, it is the right thing to do. We don't have anything like it today, and our people, in particular poor people, suffer because of it. We ought to

fix this as soon as we can and then go to work keeping an environment in our economic system that is vibrant and healthy. We must do this so that our system can do the things that I have been discussing over the next 15 or 20 years as this prescription drug benefit delivers the prescription drugs we are talking about.

I understand my time has elapsed, and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today as we move toward the American Independence Day holiday to honor a group of dedicated people in Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Tribe of New Mexico who have launched a major project to ensure that their war dead are never forgotten.

These citizens, led by Walter Patrick Limacher of Hondo, are compiling and publishing the ``Lincoln County and Mescalero Apache Tribe Honor List.'' This list includes the names of all those from this mountainous southern New Mexico region who gave their lives defending the United States in World War I, World War II, the Korean war, and Vietnam.

As families and communities rally on July 4th to celebrate the 227th birthday of our Nation, the honor list organizers understand that our celebrations are made possible by the servicemen who came from their very own small communities and ranches to take up arms in the name of liberty and freedom.

The honor list serves to unify this region of New Mexico, equally paying tribute to those who made the ultimate sacrifice. The list reads like the history of New Mexico itself, including warriors of American Indian, Hispanic, Anglo and other descents.

The collection has been a joint effort of a great many, from tribal and county citizens and officials, to the Department of Defense. My distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator McCain, Secretary of State Colin Powell, General Norman Schwarzkopf, and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson have all issued citations to the list. I want to take this opportunity to thank Mr. Limacher for his dedication and tireless work.

I, too, take pride in honoring these servicemen. They are all specially honored in this record.

The Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Indian Tribe Honor List will be presented to surviving family members of those who served, and placed in libraries located throughout south central New Mexico so all can remember these great men. The stories of these brave servicemen from Lincoln County and the Mescalero Apache Indian Reservation are forever unfinished because of the circumstance of their deeds, but their sacrifices do not go unnoticed. The honor list will create a unique bond between future generations and the past fallen heroes.

They are all heroes who fought for their country and gave their lives for our freedom, liberty, and independence. Because of their courage we are what we are. To them and their families, and to all our men and women of our armed services past and present, I salute you this Independence holiday.

Mr. President, I rise before you today to pay respect and to commend the accomplishments of a great New Mexican.

Frank A. DuBois has given the past 30 years of his life serving the agricultural producers and citizens of New Mexico. His vision and philanthropic attitude is clear when looking back to the deeds accomplished by this great man.

On June 1st, Mr. DuBois retired from his position as director of the New Mexico Department of Agriculture after 15 years. During this time, Mr. DuBois also served as cabinet secretary for four Governors. Throughout his tenure with the New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Frank worked as a field inspector, agricultural policy specialist, assistant director and, finally, director.

In addition to these great accomplishments, Frank also worked as my legislative assistant and then went on to serve as the Deputy Secretary for Land and Water Resources with the U.S. Department of the Interior.

Frank has also dedicated a large part of his life to the rodeo. In fall 2000, Frank set up the Dubois Rodeo Scholarship to help aspiring rodeo athletes at New Mexico State University. To date, 18 students from NMSU have received financial aid to help them focus more on school and their rodeo activities, rather than having to worry about meeting the financial burdens of college life.

The most amazing aspect of Frank DuBois is that for the past 13 years, he has been living with multiple sclerosis. And yet this debilitating disease has not stopped Frank from accomplishing so much. In December 2000, Frank received the DreamMaker Award from the Going the Distance for MS Research Foundation. He was diagnosed with MS in 1990 but has not wavered in his dedication to the people he serves.

Frank's life should be an inspiration to us all. Even living with MS, Frank refuses to give in. He has received six prestigious awards for his unwavering dedication to New Mexico since 1995.

I could not stand here and talk about Frank without also honoring his loving wife Sharon, who has been on my staff for many years in my Las Cruces office. Sharon has stood beside her husband through the toughest of times. She has devoted her love and time to help Frank realize his dreams and

those who know her personally are greatly appreciative.

Frank's retirement from public service will most definitely be felt by New Mexico, and he will be greatly missed. He has dedicated a great portion of his life to the advancement of the heritage of New Mexico, and even in his retirement, Frank has committed to help develop his Rodeo Scholarship and to focus on his own personal health.

Frank, although your retirement will be felt by many, I thank you for your past dedication and your promise for a continued commitment to the youth of NMSU.

Mr. Leader, every time you pointed to this group, the most important fact about it is they don't have any prescription drugs. When you talk about the other groups, they may have. But this group doesn't have any today.

Will the Senator yield?

Mr. President, first, I was watching the majority leader's discussion in my Senate office. I was so pleased that he chose to give the history of Medicare and his personal understanding of where we are that I thought I should come down and be present, at least as he finished.

I congratulate Senator Frist. I am going to say something that is perhaps outrageous. I do not think it is possible that previous Senates, as they passed great health care programs--Medicaid, Medicare--or when they passed Social Security in the Franklin Roosevelt days, I do not believe there can possibly be a Congressional Record that has an explanation of something as complicated as this that is as competent, as good, as understandable as this, and I commend Senator Frist for that.

First of all, Senator Frist understands the issue. Second, we are very fortunate that he happens to be a great doctor who decided to be a Senator. That does not happen very often either in history. Combine the two, and then we were pretty fortunate--we Republicans, and then the Senate--that we elected him as leader.

Frankly, as his good friend, the truth is, Senator Frist had not been around here long enough to be the leader. But we picked him anyway. How lucky we are. Frankly, he has not missed a step. This year will end, as it started, with one success after another because of his leadership.

This bill will pass. Seniors will know more about this program than any comparable program because of Senator Frist, because of the way he has handled it. As a matter of fact, those who talk to America on all the talk shows, whether they are for this or against it, whether they call it too liberal, too generous, whether they call it wrongheaded, whether they call it a Kennedy program that Republicans have been suckered into--whatever they are saying out there, the truth is, it is very bipartisan, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I was telling Senator Frist the other day that Social Security and Medicare heretofore in our history were not passed with equanimity of support.

However, once they were passed, regardless of what has been said partisan-wise out there, the support has been just about the same by Democrats and Republicans for Medicare funding and Social Security funding. We have all agreed to save Medicare and save Social Security. It is just about Democrats and Republicans doing the same thing because it seems that somehow the seniors of the country bring us together. We end up being one, and that is happening here.

The Senator would admit, would he not, that we are taking a chance because we are drafting something enormous, and a huge portion of it is going to have to be administered by both private companies and by the Government. It would seem that we are trying in these models to give our seniors choice, to build into a model something we have left out of medical practice, and that is preventive medicine and group practice.

The majority leader gave an example of where perhaps somebody who is sick will actually be treated by a team if they are in a PPO. That does not happen today unless it is an extraordinary fee-for-service doctor who has a lot more than just a doctor's office but has all the equipment and two nurses who are treating people. We also are hoping people will say they are comfortable, but maybe they ought to move over and try this broader scope of coverage.

I will tell all of my colleagues that my good friend, the leader, knows a lot about my ailments. I have been pretty sick for the last few years; in fact, for 4\1/2\ years. I have something wrong with my hand that causes unabated pain and the leader has been very helpful to me. The other day he was explaining the PPO system to me. He slipped and talked to me as one of America's senior citizens. He started laughing as he said it. He said: Well, you are, aren't you?

I said: That's true, I am. I'm 71.

He laughed and said: It would not be too easy to tell you, Senator, just move on over and get into a PPO. I said to him it would not be easy. I want to be honest, it is not going to be easy for a lot of senior citizens.

The point is, they are going to find out from their neighbors, their friends, through their relatives, and, if it is done right, from their doctors, that moving from traditional Medicare to the PPOs, the group coverage which will also have the same prescription coverage, is a better way for more Americans.

That is our hope. As a matter of fact, I think I am correct that is the hope of the system. That has to happen if this new system is going to work properly. I ask the Senator, is that a fair assumption?

They can stay there.

Does the Senator remember--well, he was not in the Senate yet.

He probably was. The Senator was making those flying trips back and carrying the hearts so he actually could transplant them in a timely manner. But when we first started talking about HMOs, there was a big battle going on between whom? The doctors of America and the legislators because the doctors were not accustomed to HMOs. The doctors were all accustomed to what was called traditional care; that is, they themselves ran it. They did not have any kind of group practice. They did not have any kind of clinical practice. As a matter of fact, we used to have to go home as legislators and meet with doctors and try to convince them that the goal was not to destroy the medical practice but rather to give them an opportunity to practice in a different way.

Frankly, what was being said in this Chamber--not as well as the Senator from Tennessee says it and not with as much knowledge--but what was being said was everyone would benefit if we went to the HMOs. The patients will get better care. Prevention has a better chance of inserting itself into the system than the traditional way. We have now--and not because we are great thinkers and because America plans things very well, but we have moved in the direction of PPOs that is professional units--and HMOs, which are privately managed delivery groups, they are no longer a surprise to the doctors. Some still sit home, like in my State, and wonder what is happening to the world. It is passing them by and it is no good.

The truth is, millions are trying managed care and hundreds of thousands of doctors are practicing that way.

Correct.

Right.

The other thing I wanted to close with, and it seems to be quite obvious, is there is no question but that some of our best Senators have already, or will speak about this plan, and they are worried. They will speak with trepidation and principally they will talk about two things, but the big one will be it is going to cost more than we think. Can we afford it? There is another question that is asked around, and that is: Are we giving benefits to the right groups of people in the right quantities?

I served on the Budget Committee for 28 or 30 years. I was chairman 14 times. When I left the Committee, I could have given a little speech and said, here is what is going to happen over the next 10 years, and here is what is going to happen over the next 15 years. Of course, I could have predicted cycles, that we are going to have big deficits, and we are going to come out of them and we are going to get bigger ones. I probably could have talked about the fear of the baby boomers and our ability to pay what we have said we are going to pay them when their day comes. That is lingering and that is kind of washing its way through this debate.

The question is not, will we, because we will pay. The question is, When we get there and we have to make all of those payments, how are we going to pay for it? Frankly, I do not think that is a reason to say we should not do this. We do not know whether in 15 or 20 years we will be able to have a balanced budget. In fact, if someone were to ask me--and the Senator is not asking me--I would say in 15 years we probably cannot, regardless of the economy.

The choice is to do something for the seniors on medication, which we know we have to do. Or we can choose to do nothing because we are worried about how we are going to handle this. Or we can say when that day comes there will be another great confrontation, and it will very simply be a confrontation about how do we change this, for it is not written in stone like the Ten Commandments? How do we change them if we have to? Or, God forbid, how do we change the fiscal plan of the country, whatever that is, in terms of putting a tax to pay for what?

Now, it is not embarrassing to admit that. It seems to me that I ought to say that. I know that. I am very lucky to know that, and it cannot be that I am wrong. People cannot say I should not tell Americans that, because it is true.

I was fortunate. I have heard every economist. I probably deserve a degree in economics. I did not take economics. I took chemistry and physics.

I have heard Alan Greenspan 20 times in my life. I called him up on the Energy bill. When I need somebody to tell the world there is a shortage of natural gas, I call an expert. I say Alan Greenspan will find out if it is true. And sure enough, he will tell the world. When he does, they listen.

He tells Members the same thing I am talking about here. But it does not mean we should not do this. How can we leave a system that has seniors without prescription drugs because we have questions about what will happen in 20 years? We don't. We move on ahead.

The Senator mentioned in passing the mentally ill coverage. I don't intend to inject that here. But we cannot forget about the mentally ill in our country and the fact they are not covered by insurance because we have problems. We cannot say, well, we have problems, so forget about them. Because the system made a mistake and did not include them, we cannot run around and say we made a mistake. Half the people that are in the gutters of America are there because they are homeless, because they are mentally ill, because there was no insurance when they were little kids and they end up from about 15 years of age onward doing nothing. We cannot say there is no solution.

To that end, I thank the Senator for his assistance with reference to that group of people.

Last, your eloquent speech about the greatest wellness research program in the history of mankind, that is what I call the program the Senator described when we mapped the human genome. There is no greater scientific wellness research program. It delivered to the hands and minds of the scientists of the world the chromosome makeup of every serious disease known to mankind. They said, as if to challenge the scientists, Here it is, here is where they are located within the chromosome system; solve it, scientists. What a fantastic thing to have been a part of.

I thank the Senator for commenting on my involvement.

Madam President, on behalf of the leadership, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized to speak for up to 10 minutes on the Stabenow amendment.

Madam President, I thank Senator Graham for allowing me to speak on a matter of utmost importance to my State. That accounts for the consent that he would follow me. He was supposed to speak next.

I come to the floor to discuss a situation of grave concern in my State of New Mexico. On June 12, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion that puts the fate of a small endangered fish called the silvery minnow ahead of the interests of the people of New Mexico. This ruling has far-reaching implications for all Americans. It essentially favors fish over people.

This ruling requires that the Bureau of Reclamation reassess its contractual obligations to provide water to the cities of Albuquerque, Santa Fe, and others--even water resulting from interbasin transfers. The two judges issuing the majority opinion conclude that under the Endangered Species Act, the water needs of the silvery minnow come before the water needs of the people of my State.

This far-reaching opinion essentially says that the Endangered Species Act can be used to artificially create a drought. That is precisely what is going to happen if the Bureau of Reclamation deprives cities, farms, and Indian reservations in my State of the water they desperately need. The ruling says the Endangered Species Act can preempt anything and everything, essentially.

This opinion creates a new Federal right for endangered species. It effectively invalidates preexisting contracts and orders the importation of water from another basin in violation of New Mexico law that allows only for municipal use. In essence, it says even that water must be used for the fish. The water resulting from the interbasin transfer was never part of the ecosystem or the stream basin. It was brought in for other purposes. Under the court's theory, no city, county, State, or agricultural community can reasonably expect a permanent water supply.

This is not what Congress intended when we passed the Endangered Species Act. This is not what I intended when I voted for the law. The concurring opinion of Judge Porfilio says that the Endangered Species Act can undermine any contract with the Federal Government for the supply of water resources if bureaucrats determine that an endangered fish or threatened species needs the water. As we saw with Klamath Falls 2 years ago, bureaucrats are often wrong in these affairs. But no matter, according to the court, what Federal bureaucrats mandate in the name of ESA must be so, regardless of the devastating consequences.

Did any of us who voted for the Endangered Species Act believe we were amending all Federal laws and contracts at the time of its passage? I certainly did not. Has anyone who has contracted with the Federal Government for a timber lease, mineral lease, for water, or for use of Federal facilities included a clause that says such contract will not be amended by action under the ESA? Because, according to this ruling, if one didn't, the contract won't stand if a bureaucrat somehow or somewhere decides that a fly, a fish, or rodent needs that resource.

This decision cannot be allowed to stand. It threatens all Federal contracts. It undermines the financial integrity of the United States of America and all of those with whom she contracts.

This opinion will be devastating for western water users at a time of growing crisis in the West. Currently, after years of drought, agriculture, States, cities, and counties are struggling to meet their water needs now and in the future. There simply isn't enough water to go around. Members of Congress have been deeply involved in trying to resolve this growing crisis. Now comes the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals with its announcement that the ESA preempts 75 years of existing water law, all existing contracts, and the needs of the burgeoning western population. This ruling hobbles us in our efforts to address the western water crisis.

Judge Kelly, in his dissent, rightly characterizes the ESA as a Frankenstein. Despite good intentions, this law has become a monster.

Congress never meant for this to happen. Yet, for years, we have stood by as our own law has wreaked havoc--oftentimes needlessly--in the cooperative relationship of man and nature.

I believe there is a better way. I believe we can amend this law to better protect struggling species, while still respecting the authority of this Government, States, localities, and Indian tribes. I believe we can amend this law to better protect struggling species, while still allowing people access to the resources we need to survive.

Critics have rightly pointed out that since the passage of the ESA, the number of threatened and endangered species has increased exponentially. There are now more than 1,100 species on that list. Only a handful have recovered since the passage of the ESA. Most of them, like the bald eagle, recovered because we banned the use of DDT. I have not seen evidence of any species that recovered because of abrogated water rights, which is the principal issue discussed by this Senator regarding this opinion.

As this law is now written and interpreted by the courts, we are failing our struggling species. We are also failing our citizens who look to us, State, and local leaders, for access to the resources they need to live.

This ruling says we cannot even guarantee them the very water they need for survival, sanitation, and food. In fact, it says we cannot do that by importing water into a river basin in which the fish lived before the importation. This decision says that even imported water for local use can and must be allocated for these fish. Government cannot function under such prescribed chaos.

Madam President, we must amend this law. I don't know when it will happen, but I will ask this Senate to address this law and the far- reaching implications of this decision. I will have that ready soon so that the first bill that goes through here can carry it along to fruition.

Certainty is the bedrock of western water law. That certainty is critical for our people and our country and our economy and, yes, our environment, including the endangered species. Certainty is a must for endangered species also. The court, however, chose to abandon collaborative efforts and the 2003 biological opinion and directly threaten every interstate compact in America, established adjudication, and the intent of Congress.

These rights are all out the window by virtue of this 2-to-1 opinion. A request for a rehearing en banc will be made to the Tenth Circuit and, obviously, the State of New Mexico must take it to the Supreme Court, if necessary. But I am going to look to the Senate--at least for New Mexico and what I have described here today--for a way to fix it by statutory prescription. I will be looking for the help of Senators within the next month or two on one of the bills that moves its way through here.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 931

Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the ``50 percent'' low-income assurance constraint currently required for Hispanic Serving Institutions to be eligible for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act.

Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions so that they can strengthen and expand their institutional capacity. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to improve academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum two year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During fiscal year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants.

Title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic Serving Institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the Title V forms.

The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for Title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for Title IV, need-based, aid. The revised Title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for Title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell Grants.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and of strengthening the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 108th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the nation to address the higher education needs of the nation's Hispanic-Serving Institutions, which serve the largest concentrations of Hispanic higher education students in the United States.

Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home state of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development.

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

Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill that will amend Title V of the Higher Education Act. Specifically, this bill will eliminate the ``50 percent'' low-income assurance constraint currently required for Hispanic Serving Institutions to be eligible for grants under Title V of the Higher Education Act.

Title V of the Higher Education Act is the primary vehicle used to target urgently needed funds to Hispanic Serving Institutions so that they can strengthen and expand their institutional capacity. Grants under this section can be used by higher education institutions to improve academic quality, institutional management, and financial stability. These grants are essential to institutions that provide and increase the number of educational opportunities available to Hispanic students.

Under current guidelines, in order to qualify for a grant under Title V, an institution must have at least 25 percent full time, Hispanic undergraduate student enrollment, and not less than 50 percent of its Hispanic student population must be low income. Title V grants are awarded for 5 years, with a minimum two year wait out period after the termination of a grant period before eligibility to apply for another grant. During fiscal year 2002, 191 institutions were awarded grants.

Title V's current ``50 percent'' low-income assurance requirement is an unnecessary bureaucratic regulation that constrains Hispanic Serving Institutions abilities to implement programs designed to provide long range solutions to Hispanic higher education challenges. Currently, there are no government authorized means to collect student financial data, and, although some information can be extrapolated from student financial aid forms, it is not enough information to complete the Title V forms.

The bill I am introducing today will improve the HSI eligibility requirements by allowing applicants for Title V funding to satisfy the 50 percent low-income Hispanic student population criterion with appropriate evidence of student eligibility for Title IV, need-based, aid. The revised Title V section will retain the requirement that to be eligible for title V funds, an institution must have an enrollment of needy students. However, rather than conditioning grant qualification upon the cumbersome requirement that institutions prove 50 percent of their Hispanic students are low income, it will allow institutions to qualify for Title V money if 50 percent of the students are receiving need-based assistance under title IV or a substantial percentage of the students are receiving Pell Grants.

The Higher Education Act of 1965 was signed into law for the purpose of increasing access to higher education for all citizens of the United States and of strengthening the capacity of higher education institutions to better serve their communities. The reauthorization of the Higher Education Act during the 108th Congress presents a powerful opportunity for the nation to address the higher education needs of the nation's Hispanic-Serving Institutions, which serve the largest concentrations of Hispanic higher education students in the United States.

Hispanic Serving Institutions provide the quality education essential to full participation in today's society. Many students in my home state of New Mexico have benefited from the academic excellence that Hispanic Serving Institutions seek to provide. Title V grants are intended to provide assistance to these less advantaged, developing institutions. However, by convoluting the application process, Congress is preventing these institutions from applying for grants and obstructing their development.

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

Mr. President, I announce that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry will conduct a meeting on June 18, 2003 in SR-328A at 9 a.m. The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the nomination of Thomas Dorr to be Under Secretary of Agriculture for Rural Development.

committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

The hearing will be held on Tuesday, June 24, at 10 a.m. in Room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

This is the first in a series of hearings devoted to the improved understanding of the governance of the Department of Energy laboratories and approaches to optimize the capability of those laboratories to respond to national needs.

The purpose of this first hearing is to evaluate changes over time in the relationship between the Department of Energy and its predecessors and contractors operating DOE laboratories and sites to determine if these changes have affected the ability of scientists and engineers to respond to national missions.

Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150.

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

Mr. President, we have two Senators who wish to speak on the pending amendment. The junior Senator from Texas wishes to speak for 5 minutes. I understand the Senator from California wishes to speak for 15 minutes immediately following the Senator from Texas.

May I ask the Senator a question?

You mentioned various organizations that support this. I wonder if it might be fair to say that, regarding future jobs for America, we might have some interest in knowing what our resources are. Those concerned about jobs for the future, might they also be interested?

I thank the Senator for his remarks this morning.

The Senator from Oklahoma, Mr. Inhofe, is here. He asked if he might have time. How much time do we have?

I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I want to reserve the remainder of our time. However, I thank the distinguished Senator from Louisiana for her excellent remarks. The real issue is knowledge: What should the American people know about their future in terms of our own resources?

I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

My understanding is we would like to change the time to 11:15, assure the time at 11:15.

Between now and 11:15?

I have no objection.

Madam President, I trust, with the time being so much more on their side, a Senator from that side will soon come to the floor and talk.

I think that is fair, and I thank the Senator for suggesting it.

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

Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains now for debate?

If there are any Senators who wish to speak who favor this amendment, we will give them some of our time if they want to get down here and take a few minutes. It is a very interesting and exciting issue.

I will take a few minutes now. I yield myself 5 minutes.

Will the Chair inform me when I have used 5 minutes.

Mr. President, a lot has been said about this. A lot is not true. In a very few minutes, I will go through exactly what is true by reading specifically what the bill says and the interpretations that we have.

I do not believe there is any right-thinking American, knowing the dangerous nature of our reliance upon both oil and natural gas, who would not want to know tomorrow morning, if they could, how much in resources we have if we ever needed them. We only want to know about certain ones. We do not want to know about those who might want to drill out in the ocean. We just want to know about some of them. I think every American would say: Tell us how much we own, and then later on we will discuss whether it is worthwhile trying to use them.

The provisions in this bill do not lift the moratorium. It simply authorizes the Secretary to conduct a study. This language prohibits the use of drilling to obtain data, and it also directs the Secretary to use existing data. It is a prudent move to take an inventory of our domestic resources and where they are located. Technology has changed significantly over the years, and resource data that were developed in the 1970s are totally outdated. We did not have the advantage of 3-D seismic analysis, and MMS has never included 3-D data in its assessment of the Atlantic OCS resources.

Nearly 60 percent of our oil is imported today. Supply disruptions left the world oil markets in short supply. Not too many years ago, it also left lines in America where in New York they started waiting in lines at 4 in the morning. They got so mad at each other, they even shot each other because one was jumping ahead of the other in line. Just think of what would happen if that were the case and if then somebody stood up on the floor of the Senate and said, well, if 10 years ago that amendment would have passed and they would have taken an inventory, we could at least be taking a look to see whether we could use our own oil that is in the ocean that we already know how to get out without destroying anything.

Experts agree that the country faces a crisis. Over time, technological advances have allowed us to identify additional oil and gas in areas where they once were thought to be in limited supply. In 1995, the Federal Government estimated that the Gulf of Mexico contained 95 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas. Five years later, in 2000, which is not too long ago, that number was increased to 193 trillion of undiscovered gas, an increase of 100 percent.

Restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude environmental, geological, physiological, economic engineering, or other scientific analysis studies and evaluations. Congress passed its own drilling moratoria. It included language in the conference report that specifically provided for new studies. The statute says what I just stated, that restrictions on preleasing activities do not preclude environmental, geological, physiological, economic, and engineering activities.

I am convinced that with the energy supply, a short supply in our country, the shortages in the 2000 and 2001 and the higher prices again this year, we are going to need to take prudent steps.

I yield myself 1 additional minute.

It is no surprise that informed people know what America's concern is, such as the American Chemistry Council, American Iron and Steel Institute, Council of Industrial Boiler Owners, National Association of Manufacturers, the Fertilizer Institute, the American Gas Association, the Farm Bureau, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also spoken out, not on this issue but on natural gas prices and the shortage. He said: I am quite surprised how little attention the natural gas problem has been getting because it is a very serious problem.

That is a true statement, and because of a committee that was asked to do work to plan a policy, we are doing something that Alan Greenspan said. He said he was surprised we are not doing more. We want to do more. This more is a simplistic more. It is a let-us-know-what-we-have more. That is all there is to it. Knowledge is better than no knowledge when it comes to problems. Knowledge of what you own is better than not knowing what you own, and that is the issue.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, normally, we look at them when we get them--both sides--and we make decisions and talk with the proponents and we winnow down the list. The answer is, not yet.

Mr. President, there always has been on the first degree to which they are offered.

Mr. President, I briefly want to thank the leaders, particularly the majority leader, for helping to get the last Senators to sign up. This means we will get an Energy bill that contains plenty of what people want. It has ethanol and, before we are finished, it will have all of the what people want with reference to the continuation of wind and related energies.

This just means people will have every opportunity to look at amendments, and they have listed everything under the sun. There will be a chance to work on them. We thank everyone for cooperating. It looks to me that, with the majority leader and minority leader helping us, after we return from the recess, we can complete this bill in a week, based upon us finally having this list. I thank everybody.

Mr. President, I know we will be back on this bill. I note that the Indian tribes and organizations listed are not in full. We have additional ones since this was prepared, and they will be added in due course.

I compliment the distinguished Senator, Mr. Campbell. I am pleased to be his cosponsor, and I say for those who are going to now look at this bill, I hope our Indian leaders also are aware that there will be those who look at it from the standpoint of how can they make it more difficult for the Indian people to be able to develop their resources. That is what some of the time and effort will be spent on during the intervention between this bill and its final vote. How can organizations that do not want the Indian people to produce their raw materials into energy and resources, thus jobs and opportunity for the Indian people, get their hands on this bill and try to offer amendments to try to harm this bill? I am certain some will do that.

We will be vigilant, we will be aware, and we are asking the Indian leaders who support this to inform their Senators that this is the bill they want as part of America's policy on energy. We are asking every Indian leader to advise those Senators who have been with them in the past to support this bill. This bill is their bill. It is for their future. It is for jobs and money and resources for them. We need them telling their Senators that this is the bill they want. If they do that, come July we will have a real Fourth of July celebration for the Indian people, for in a sense they will be free, free to develop their resources, where heretofore their hands have been tied.

There will be those during the intervening time who will look for ways to put more ties and strings back into the Campbell bill. We want to tell our Indian leaders to tell their friends in the Senate they do not want that; they do not want changes to this bill that will make it harder for them to develop their resources in partnership, singularly or otherwise, with other Americans.

This amendment is the product of many hours of negotiation and cooperation among the interested tribes, the Indian Affairs Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

I am also pleased that this amendment enjoys the support of numerous tribes including the Jicarilla Apache Nation, the Cherokee Nation, the Southern Utes, the Chickasaw Nation, the Native American Energy Group, the National Congress of American Indians, Dine Power--a Navajo Corporation, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, which represents nearly 50 energy producing tribes and The National Tribal Environmental Council, which represent 180 tribe,

I am pleased that Indian tribes across the country will play an important role in our national energy plan. By passing this legislation, we will streamline the tribal leasing process that outside parties have more incentive to partner with tribes in developing energy resources and provide investment in critical energy infrastructure on Indian land.

Indian lands contain some of the richest energy reserves in the Nation. Although Indian land accounts for only 5 percent of the land area of the U.S. it contains: 30 percent of identified coal deposits; 5 percent of our nation's oil; and 10 percent of our natural gas, which is in very tight supply.

Despite the fact that reserves are present, the Department of the Interior estimates that only 20 to 25 percent of these assets have been developed.

Energy projects are capital intensive and most tribes do not have the financial capability to develop the resources.

Tribes face an additional burden in attracting partners and that is a result

of the paternalistic lease approval system that requires the Secretary of the Interior to approve all tribal leases. This delays action and creates investment uncertainty.

In an attempt to resolve this out-of-date process, the Indian Affairs Committee and the Senate Energy Committee have taken key elements of both Senator Campbell's legislation S. 522 and Senator Bingaman proposal, S. 424.

The title adopts Senator Bingaman's proposal to create the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs within the Department of Energy. This office will provide grants and loan guarantees to tribes to facilitate the development of their energy resources and infrastructure.

Section 303, of this title will change the existing lease agreements between the Secretary of the Interior and tribes to allow tribes to enter into a lease or agreement without the approval of the Secretary so long as those leases or business agreements conform to regulations promulgated by the Secretary.

The section establishes a process by which a tribe may submit a plan governing leases and rights-of-way to the Secretary for approval. It also requires the tribe to demonstrate to the Secretary that the plan includes provisions regarding lease and contract terms, environmental regulation, and public notification and comment.

I think that is very important to note that this entire proposal is voluntary. Let me repeat that. This proposal is completely voluntary. Tribes will not be forced to adopt this proposal if they feel it would not benefit the tribe as a whole.

We have numerous letters from tribes who support the proposal and I am confident they will benefit. However, any tribe that opposes this proposal probably will not participate and can continue to operate under the status quo.

This amendment also protects the environment. I think the statement of President Joe Shirley of the Navajo Nation before the Senate Indian Affairs Committee accurately captures the environmental responsibilities all tribes must comply with. President Shirley stated,

Tribes may already promulgate regulations that are more,

but not less, stringent than Federal regulations governing

the same subject matters (environment). The following is a

list of some of the federal statutes that already control

regulations for land use, both State and tribal: National

Environmental Policy Act, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act,

Endangered Species Act, Federal Land Management and Policy

Act, National Historic Preservation Act, Native American

Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Surface Mining

Control and Reclamation Act and the Indian Mineral Leasing

Act.

Clearly, the tribes must fully comply with our environmental statutes.

Following markup of S. 14, the Indian Affairs and Energy Committees have worked to address concerns regarding the trust responsibilities between tribes and the Secretary of the Interior. These agreed-upon changes make up the amendment Senator Campbell has offered.

This amendment deserves the strong support of the Senate.

I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for Senator Campbell to speak.

Mr. President, first I thank the distinguished Senator from Idaho for his remarks this morning and for his assistance on this bill. I thank him very much.

This morning I want in particular to thank the distinguished minority whip, the Senator from Nevada, for his comments on the floor and his commitment. We are working on a list on our side. We will certainly be ready at the same time or sooner, which means whether we finish by this Friday or not, although we will try mightily once we have the list to wean them down and to move with dispatch. Obviously, we will be on a course to get an Energy bill this year, which is clearly what we want to do. From listening to the minority leader, I have no doubt whatsoever that is what the minority desires to do. I thank him very much for the comments here this morning.

As far as the pending amendment is concerned, it is in our hands at this point. The Senator from California has her prerogative of not wanting to set it aside. We have an obligation to decide what we are going to do with it. We ought to do that pretty soon. Our leadership will make that decision. It is not directly within the jurisdiction of this committee, or I would be making decisions with the leadership. It is more within the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee, and the leadership is taking a look.

I understand we have a vote this morning on a judge. Is that correct? That will give leadership a chance to be here in the Chamber, I say to my friend from Nevada, after which time we will make a decision on what we want to do with the pending amendment.

In the meantime, the Senator from New Mexico yields the floor knowing there are others who want to speak to this issue. The junior Senator from Idaho desires to speak. I will yield at this point so he may proceed.

Madam President, as a manager of the bill, our side is awaiting communication from the executive branch by way of explanation of the Feinstein amendment. That should be arriving shortly. When it arrives, we will be ready on our side for the conclusion of any discussion. So it should not be too long--probably after lunch--before we are ready on our side for a vote on the Feinstein amendment.

For those who are wondering, that is what is happening. There is no need to be in the Chamber on that amendment until that event occurs. I am certain nothing will happen on the Energy bill until that time because there is no concurrence that anything can happen. In other words, we cannot do anything because the Feinstein amendment cannot be set aside for any other amendments.

We hope it will be here shortly. I noted the presence a short time ago of the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, which has primary jurisdiction on the Feinstein amendment. He, too, was wondering what was happening. I want he and his staff to know that is exactly what is happening. It should not be too much longer until we then proceed in due course for a vote.

Madam President, do they have any time left on their side?

I object.

Madam President, how much time is on this side?

I have no objection.

Madam President, do we have any time remaining on our side?

I yield the Senator from Wyoming the remainder of our time.

Madam President, I yield back any time we have on our side.

I move to table the amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, I understand that amendment will be accepted on both sides.

The Senator from Louisiana asked if she might speak for 1 minute.

Madam President, I congratulate the Senator. The first comment was on a question the Senator put to Dr. Greenspan and his response about being surprised at how little attention was being paid to matters. We are quite proud that this committee started paying attention to natural gas as soon as we convened this year. Our first hearings indicated, through our experts, that we were going to have a serious shortage. We were questioning even then; that was only 3 or 4 months ago.

We have nothing further.

I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask Senator Campbell if that is all right.

We have no objection.

Amendment No. 881

(Purpose: To provide for a significant environmental review

process associated with the development of Indian energy

projects, to establish duties of the federal government to

Indian tribes in implementing an energy development program,

and for other purposes)

Mr. President, how much time do we have on our side?

I will use 7 minutes and leave 3 minutes.

First, I congratulate the distinguished Senator Campbell from the State of Colorado. I don't believe I could say it any better.

In a nutshell, the Bingaman amendment is not good for the Indians in the United States. If we are crafting a bill here that says we want them to develop their energy resources, the amendment before us takes the unprecedented step of applying the NEPA process to the Indian tribes just as if they were the Federal Government.

This amendment goes well beyond current environmental regulations and adds unnecessary regulations and costs to the tribal energy projects.

This proposal is opposed by numerous Indian tribes and tribal associations that are already burdened by the lease approval process through the Federal bureaucracy.

I will read a list of Indian tribes and associations that I would assume do not favor the Bingaman amendment because they were in favor of the amendment alluded to by the distinguished Senator, Mr. Campbell, with whom I was going to cosponsor, for they all refer to it:

The National Congress of American Indians, the Council of Energy Resource Tribes, National Tribal Environmental Council, Southern Ute Tribe, Cherokee Nation, Chickasaw Nation, Native American Energy Group, Mohegan Tribe, Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Dine Power Corporation, Jicarilla Apache Nation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

I ask unanimous consent that this list be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the amendment will do the following:

It will force the tribes to pay the cost of NEPA, extend the bureaucratic delays of energy projects, and diminish tribal sovereignty.

There isn't a tribe in the country that would volunteer for this program because it doesn't do anything to improve their current process. So why would they volunteer to join it?

I am confused by the purpose of the amendment. If the intention is to mandate that the tribes comply with NEPA for every single lease or permit, why not offer an amendment to strike the entire Indian energy title and argue for the status quo?

This amendment goes far beyond existing law and expands NEPA beyond the scope of the Federal Government to cover tribes, independent of any Federal action.

By requiring an environmental impact statement to be performed for every lease, it will impose a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to be financed by the tribes. A cost they should not have to afford.

If adopted, the amendment would encourage the generation of paper, not the generation of natural gas and crude oil and coal, which I thought we were here supposed to do.

The objective of title III has to be to help the tribes by streamlining current lease approval processes that have hampered investment and the development of the Indian tribal lands as far as energy is concerned.

Senator Campbell and I have worked closely with the tribes to craft a careful compromise that will protect the trust responsibility of the Secretary and the environment. That bill will be offered later, but it is not the bill pending before the Senate. It is a bill you will know because it will bear the name of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, Senator Campbell.

The Secretary's approval of the tribes' energy resource agreement will trigger NEPA if the Secretary of the Interior believes it will have a significant impact on the environment. Once an energy resource agreement is approved, tribes will not be required to seek Secretarial approval but will be required to comply with relevant environmental laws, just like any other landowner.

Senator Campbell and I have worked with tribes to ensure that the trust relationship between tribes and the Secretary of the Interior is protected.

This proposal is embodied in the Campbell-Domenici amendment which will be offered at a later date.

The Bingaman amendment, however, would require the Secretary of the Interior to take full responsibility for all liability incurred by tribes--even if the Secretary wasn't party to the negotiations. That simply doesn't make sense.

However, a separate and conflicting provision in this amendment allows the Secretary to negotiate all remedies to the Secretary's trust responsibility in the energy resource agreement.

As I read it this will give the Secretary authority to drive a hard bargain with individual tribes that are desperate to gain the Secretary's approval of their energy resource agreement. Of course, this will vary from tribe to tribe and further confuse the trust issues.

I believe a more simple solution is to ensure that tribes take full responsibility for the leases and business agreements they negotiate. The Secretary will not be liable for anything she is not a party to, but will continue to conduct annual trust evaluation to ensure that the assets are protected.

Such a solution as included in the Campbell amendment has the support of many tribes.

I am not aware that the administration has reviewed the Bingaman amendment and I am not aware of how many tribes support Senator Bingaman's amendment.

The current system has failed to stimulate investment on Indian land, despite the resource potential.

The Bingaman amendment will only exacerbate this problem and continue to restrict the quest for Tribal self-determination.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the Bingaman amendment.

I will state, I would not be offering these kinds of remarks in any normal situation regarding the relationship between the Indian people, the Federal Government, and third parties. But clearly when you have an energy bill, and the purpose of the bill is to have a section in it that will encourage, will cause, will say to the Indian people, we want you to be players, participants, owners of energy, so that you can be part of America's energy solutions and become owners in that solution, then I think we cannot adopt the laws that are as restrictive as the ones proposed in the amendment that is pending.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I thought we agreed to 20 minutes on each side.

They want to set it aside and go to the Burma measure. We had 20 minutes on each side, but they want to proceed to the Burma debate and vote, stacked, with yours going first.

They want to stack them.

What was the request again?

Mr. President, we yield back our time on our side. I move to table the Bingaman amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I yield to the Senator from Colorado.