Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is to advise you that the oversight hearing scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. has been postponed. This hearing has not been rescheduled. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on the science and implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan including its effect on species restoration and timber availability. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164.

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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 take place on Tuesday, October 2, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the status of proposals for the transportation of natural gas from Alaska to markets in the lower 48 States and on legislation that may be required to expedite the construction of a pipeline from Alaska. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Deborah Estes, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Deborah Estes at (202) 224-5360. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, October 2, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the interaction of old-growth forest protection initiative and national forest policy. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, 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 Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 26, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the science and implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan including its effect on species restoration and timber availability. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, 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 Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 25, 2001, beginning at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the effectiveness of the National Fire Plan in the 2001 fire season, including fuel reduction initiatives, and to examine the 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment that was recently agreed to by the Western Governors' Association, Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton and Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, 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 Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164. subcommittee on public lands and forests

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici. It authorizes State and local transit authorities that receive Federal transit assistance to purchase transit buses through the GSA list. That is the General Services Administration list. Currently only the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has the option to purchase buses through the General Services Administration. The amendment would open up that option to other public transit agencies around the country that also receive Federal transit assistance, as the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority does. The General Services Administration currently offers three heavy-duty transit buses on its schedule. GSA selected the three as a result of competitive solicitations, and the companies had to bid attractive terms and prices in order to win those 5-year contracts and get on that list for the General Services Administration. Allowing other public transit agencies the option to purchase these buses from GSA would result in substantial cost and time savings for these agencies. This would, of course, be especially valuable to some of our smaller communities around the country. The new authority is limited only to transit buses and options offered by the General Services Administration. So the resulting demand will be limited only to transit agencies that want the specific bus that GSA offers. This does not require anyone to buy anything. This does provide an option that they can use for purchasing if they desire to do so. However, in the next 12 to 18 months, GSA plans to broaden the program to a multiple award schedule with a larger variety of vehicles and optional equipment choices, which of course will benefit everyone. We understand GSA is concerned that it may not be able today to adequately implement this new option. Consequently, the amendment directs GSA to notify the committee of jurisdiction if it finds that the program is resulting in unanticipated costs or impacts. We try in the language to give GSA the opportunity to do that if they determine that that is required. This is a meritorious amendment. It is one I would very much like to see adopted as part of this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that I be permitted to send an amendment to the desk and have it considered.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, all of us share in the overwhelming shock and grief at the horrible events of these past 24 hours. All of us are struggling to find the right words to say--struggling to understand our own emotions--struggling to answer the question, ``Where do we go from here?'' Despite our uncertainties, we share a common bond--the deepest sorrow and sympathy we feel for those innocent people who have lost their lives or their loved ones in those instants of unspeakable inhumanity. I join with the people and leaders of the world in expressing my profound sadness and extending my personal condolences to all of those who have been victimized by these acts of terror. Ten years ago, the Soviet Union crumbled and the Warsaw Pact disappeared. The cold war, many have said, is over. The nation moved quickly to reduce the size of our military and to reorder our national priorities to attend to pressing national issues of health care, education, justice, and so forth. All of us celebrated the nation's new priorities. Hopes for the future of our nation and the evolving international system were high. What we were only beginning to understand, however, was that the end of the cold war did not mean the end of America's need to ensure its security in new and different ways. In the wake of the cold war, military experts around the country began to discuss their concerns about the nation's new vulnerabilities. The prospect of a pitched battle between heavy tanks on the fields of Europe was no longer the most likely threat to which our military forces would be asked to respond. Experts began discussing the idea of ``asymmetric warfare''--that is, the ability of America's enemies to attack us where we are most vulnerable. The cold war structure of our military and its weaponry was designed to meet adversaries with similar capabilities--not to meet adversaries who chose different, often less sophisticated ways to get the job done. Slowly, too slowly, we have begun to understand the full extent of our country's vulnerability. Many are concerned that potential enemies are developing intercontinental missiles with destructive warheads and that we have no missile system capable of thwarting an attack of that kind. Others have warned that our enemies could deliver packages of destruction in suitcases, rental trucks, or on shipboard. Still others have observed our inability to intercept low flying aircraft or cruise missiles heading to American targets. The events of the past 24 hours demonstrate another horrible scenario of America's vulnerability to terrorist attack, an attack that was indiscriminate in those who were targeted. Our priorities are clear at this point. First, rescue these victims and help those who survive, their families, their children. Second, resolve to identify and punish those who perpetrated these heinous acts. And finally, we must put in place the safeguards and protections so that this type of heinous act can never occur again in this country. My colleagues have referred to September 11th as a day of infamy-- recalling the same shock and horror the nation experienced at the news of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. President Roosevelt offered the nation some vital words on that occasion. He said: No matter how long it may take us to overcome this premeditated invasion, the American people in their righteous might will win through to an absolute victory. This is a time of national resolve. This is a time for us to also recall President Roosevelt's directive that ``the greatest fear we have, is fear itself.'' We cannot permit ourselves to stand still, overcome by shock, in times such as these. We must move forward as one, resolved to seek justice, and solutions to our national security laid bare by this horrible event.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of S. 149, the Export Administration Act of 2001. From my perspective, consideration of this legislation is long overdue. Congress has extended the Export Administration Act on a temporary basis since 1984, and in doing so has completely ignored the extraordinary changes in technology that have occurred in that timeframe. Current export control policy, formulated during the Cold War several decades ago, no longer fits either the current global context or our specific national security needs. It is time to bring U.S. law into conformity with international reality. Over the past year I have been involved in two high-level advisory panels that have carefully examined the existing U.S. export control regime. The first was a study group focusing on Enhancing Multilateral Export Controls for U.S. National Security, and was sponsored by the Henry L. Stimson Center and the Center for Strategic for International Studies. The second consisted of two study groups, one on Technology and Security in the 21st Century and one Computer Exports and National Security, sponsored entirely by the Center for Strategic for International Studies. Each of these groups concluded that existing export control policy and procedures are outdated, unsound, ineffective, unrealistic, and counterproductive. Taken as a whole, they impede coordination between the U.S. government agencies responsible for export control policy, they hinder our efforts to cooperate with our most important allies, they ignore the new threats and opportunities in the international system, they expend significant human and financial resources insulating easily available technologies, they limit the ability of our best companies to innovate and compete and, in the final analysis, they harm our military and commercial national security interests. The studies I have mentioned offered a range of extremely important policy recommendations, but fundamental to them are three important overarching conclusions, all of which are relevant to the debate at hand. The first conclusion is that globalization has resulted in what the Defense Science Board has previously called a ``leveling'' of access to technology and the capacity of the United States to obtain and control technologies critical to its national interest. This concept suggests that access to commercial technology is now universal, and its use for both commercial and military ends is largely unconstrained. Enabling technologies necessary for modern warfare, examples being semiconductors, computer hardware and software, simulation and surveillance devices, advanced telecommunications, and so on, are available to nearly any country that wishes to access them, ally and adversary alike. The result of these changes is an export control regime that is, to quote the Defense Science Board, ``for all practical purposes ineffective at manipulating global access to dual-use technology and . . . only marginally more successful in the conventional weapons arena.'' This is the context within which we debate export control reform today, and these are the changes that the proposed legislation is trying to address. The second overarching conclusion is that is that we need to put higher fences around much smaller, but more critical, sets of technologies. Because access to advanced technology and technical capabilities have spread so widely and because research and development is now global in nature, it is time that we focus our efforts at export control on limited technologies that directly affect our national security. In particular, we should concentrate on protecting and developing the software and databases that sustain and strengthen our military superiority. The primary objective in the current export control regime is to prevent potential adversaries from obtaining technological components that would allow them to develop weapons systems and manage warfare in a more effective fashion. Unfortunately, this objective is still considered rational, this in spite of the radical changes that have occurred in the international political economic environment. Commercial computers that can be obtained online or through retail outlets can now perform the vast majority of battlefield applications. As a result, a coherent and compelling argument can be made that we need to concentrate on controlling the technologies that will allow advanced components to be integrated into effective systems. This should be one of our primary considerations as we reconsider export control, and this is one of the goals the proposed legislation is trying to achieve. The final overarching conclusion is that it is time that we begin creating a new international framework that will allow more effective export control between the United States and its allies. Changes in advanced technology and the global environment has undercut or weakened existing agreements, and we must begin creating a foundation upon which new cooperative mechanisms can be established. In the recent past, much of this required change has been blocked by the United States, the primary reason being that its export control system was based on measures, computer MTOPS being the most salient example, that are no longer relevant in the current international environment and are not adhered to by our allies. Regulatory reform in the United States must occur before new international frameworks can be established, and this is one of the goals the proposed legislation is trying to address. There are those among my colleagues who would argue that even if the international system has changed to this extent, even if globalization has changed the international equation, the United States has a moral obligation to limit access to certain key technologies for a specific group of countries. The example used most frequently on the Senate floor is China, but certainly other countries could be inserted in its place. Let me state here that I would not disagree that certain countries should be singled out as potential threats to the United States and technology limited to the extent that it is feasible to do so. But the proposed legislation accomplishes this objective. The arguments on the Senate floor that the proposed legislation somehow diminishes our capacity to control sensitive and critical technologies is specious at best. On the contrary, many levels of restrictions remain in place to protect U.S. national security interests. What the proposed legislation does do is provide the U.S. government with the flexibility and focus to address concerns over advanced technology and adapt to changes in the current international environment. It is time that we change our anachronistic system of export control. This legislation reflects several years of hard work on the part of my colleagues, and I believe it represents a balanced and strategic approach to the problems at hand. The legislation was voted out of the Banking Committee by a 19-1 vote. As the statements on the floor will attest, the legislation has the bi-partisan support of most of the Members of the Senate. President Bush supports it, as does all the relevant officials in his Administration. President Clinton supported it, as did all the relevant officials in his Administration. It is supported by a broad range of organizations, many of which are led by key officials from previous Democratic and Republican Administrations. However, with that said, I find it disappointing that the legislation has not addressed the important issue of U.S. commercial satellites and space-related component exports. The Defense Authorization Act for FY 1999 moved responsibility for export licensing of these items from the Department of Commerce to the Department of State. By doing so, communications satellite and space-related items were placed on the U.S. Munitions List, effecting a crippling blow to the U.S. aerospace industry. It makes timely deliveries to overseas customers and our allies nearly impossible, and excludes commercial satellite sales from competitive rate financing offered by the Export-Import Bank. While our U.S. companies may find themselves hard-pressed to find institutions to provide reasonable financing for foreign customers, their competitors may not. Last year, the Aerospace Industries Association claimed satellite exports had fallen over 40 percent in the period from late 1999 to early 2000, and the forecast was for the trend to get continually worse. I certainly hope this issue is addressed in the upcoming conference. We have examined the issue of export control many times over. It is time to recognize the importance of export control reform to the national interest of the United States and pass this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will take this opportunity to speak for a few minutes on the work that is currently underway in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on which the Presiding Officer serves with great distinction. We are making an effort in that committee to develop a comprehensive and balanced energy policy. I want to inform my colleagues about the likely steps we will be following in the near future. As I see it, Congress has a real opportunity this fall to set an energy policy that will sustain our economic prosperity as we move into this new 21st century. The Senate has a key role to play in seeing this opportunity does not slip through our grasp. A great deal has changed since 1992, which is the last time Congress enacted major energy legislation. We have seen energy markets become more competitive and more dynamic. But we have also seen some significant bumps along the way. First of all, consumers are more vulnerable to the vagaries of the energy markets than they ever were before. I think the evidence we have of what happened in California with electricity prices is one example. Second, gasoline supplies are increasingly subject to local crises and price spikes due to the proliferation of inflexible local fuel specifications. Third, we rely more heavily each year on natural gas--natural gas to heat our homes and to produce electricity. But our system for producing and transporting that natural gas is showing signs that it is reaching its limits. Fourth, the need to address the fundamental connection between energy and global warming is something that is becoming a major concern of many of us, and I think rightly so. So I am pleased most of my colleagues in the Senate recognize these challenges. I believe there is a bipartisan consensus in favor of a sensible energy policy that will smooth out the bumps in the market by increasing energy efficiency, by boosting our energy supplies, by modernizing our energy infrastructure. Technology and policy innovations will be key to achieving this balanced outcome so Americans can have reliable and affordable energy choices that are sustainable over the long term. Our energy problems cannot be effectively addressed by packaging up a collection of tired old wish lists and passing that through the Senate floor in a day or two. Energy consumers and producers, and several committees here in the Senate, will need to focus on new energy approaches if we are to protect our national economic prosperity and do so through smarter ways to produce and use energy. For this reason, as the Senate takes up and considers energy legislation this fall, we will be talking about the need for proactive policies, about the need for technology-driven approaches to our energy problems. We have made a good start already in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. We began our markup in July, before the August recess--a markup of comprehensive energy legislation. The first part of the bill that we have substantially completed at this point is a comprehensive revitalization of the national capabilities for energy research and development. Putting research and development first reflects a broad consensus that new science and new technology are at the core of any solution to our national energy challenges. Despite the importance of energy R&D, our recent commitment to it leaves a great deal to be desired. The level of effort we are making today in Federal energy technology research and development is equivalent in constant dollars to what we were making in 1966. Yet our economy is three times larger today than it was in 1966. It is very hard to see how we can build a 21st century energy system on a 1960s level of effort in the research and development budgets. The committee will begin its deliberations beginning this next week and its effort to mark up a bill this next week. Major topic areas before the committee as we move forward in this markup will include policy proposals to improve energy efficiency, to improve our ability to produce energy from a great diversity of sources, and to tackle the tough issues related to electricity restructuring. Today I am releasing a detailed description of the proposed chairman's mark in these various areas. I am also releasing the text of the major portions of the bill we will be working on in committee--the next major portion of the bill. This part of the bill will deal with electricity, and it will provide a framework to integrate new technologies into electricity markets to provide high-quality, efficient electricity generation in every community and to give consumers new ways to manage and control energy use and energy costs. I would like to take an opportunity to describe some of the key proposals in the mark that we will be considering in a little more detail. With respect to energy efficiency, the chairman's mark that we will be considering for the energy policy bill will contain provisions that will improve energy efficiency in household appliances--also provisions that will improve energy efficiency in Federal and other facilities and industry itself. Let me state my belief, though, that increasing vehicle fuel efficiency is one of the highest legislative priorities that the Senate should have in energy legislation. In addition to our growing dependence on foreign imported oil, we have reached the limits of our current infrastructure to refine and distribute fuels. A policy of simply continuing to increase the demand for gasoline is not sustainable. Fortunately, advanced technology in a variety of areas to improve automotive fuel efficiency offers a better answer, and we need to move in that direction. The National Academy of Sciences has given us some very useful ways of thinking how to reformulate the CAFE program. Clearly, consumers want the option to choose the type of vehicle that suits their needs and preferences. They also want to be able to count on reliable and affordable fuel supplies. While CAFE standards are not in the Energy Committee's jurisdiction, a number of other mechanisms to encourage greater fuel efficiency in cars and trucks are in our jurisdiction. The mark will contain purchase requirements for Federal fleets that will provide greater incentive to automobile and truck manufacturers to produce more highly efficient vehicles. A topic closely allied to vehicle fuel efficiency is the question of the fuels that we will need in the future to power cars and trucks. Here, the Congress has a clear duty to address the growing multiplicity of fuel specifications around the country. Part of the solution to this problem will be provided by a bill in the Committee on Environment and Public Works, sponsored by Senators Smith and Reid. I hope that these provisions find their way into our overall energy bill in the Senate. The Chairman's mark will include a number of energy efficiency provisions relating to appliances. Perhaps the most visible proposal in this regard will be one that enacts a 13 Seasonal Energy Efficiency Rating for central air-conditioning units. Such a standard was finalized earlier this year, but since then the Bush Administration has attempted to withdraw it and substitute a lesser standard. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources held hearings on this topic and the record before the committee has persuaded me that the administration based its decision on economic information that was outdated and inaccurate. A 13 SEER rating for central air-conditioning units can do a lot to help avoid summer blackouts and brownouts when high temperatures send electricity demand soaring. During the intense heat wave we had in early August, which was felt nationwide, peak demand from air- conditioning did, in fact, lead to problems in electricity availability in some parts of the country, while others were uncomfortably close to the margin. We need to build more efficiency into this part of our system over the long term, and a higher standard for these large air- conditioning units will help. The Chairman's mark will also require the Federal government to purchase Energy Star or other efficient products designated by the Federal Energy Management Program. This is a requirement that, again, makes eminent sense. Taxpayers save money, and the cost of energy- efficient appliances to consumers comes down, when the Federal government takes a leadership role in purchasing highly energy efficient computers, office machines, and other appliances. The mark also authorizes a grant program to help build energy- efficient schools. School districts can ill afford to waste taxpayer funds on excessive energy bills because of the inefficiency of school buildings. With respect to new energy sources, it is important that the Senate look to policies that will truly improve our supplies of domestic energy security, including measures to improve our supply of natural gas and to diversify our energy mix to include a greater reliance on domestic renewable resources. These are the types of provisions that I will include in the Chairman's mark. I will not be including in the mark any provisions relating to drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The debate over oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--a long- standing bone of contention in energy policy--is in many ways a distraction from more important opportunities to bolster our domestic energy security. Oil produced from the arctic refuge is not likely to influence the world price of oil, or the prices that U.S. consumers pay for gasoline. I plan to focus attention in the Energy Committee mark-up on a number of issues that will have a greater impact on our domestic production of oil and gas and a larger near-term impact than drilling in the Arctic. The first such issue is another Arctic resource that could be brought to U.S. markets--natural gas. The exploration for oil in the Prudhoe Bay region of Alaska has resulted in the discovery of abundant supplies of natural gas, but there is now no way to bring that gas to markets in the lower 48 States that could benefit from it. The projection of growing demand for natural gas has re-awakened interest in building a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Alberta, Canada, where it would join with existing gas pipelines that serve the United States. That pipeline would be an enormous construction project on the part of the private sector, requiring perhaps 2,000 miles of steel pipe and costing $20 billion. A lot of spurious job numbers have been floated about drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The gas pipeline would be the real thing as far as job creation is concerned. If we do not act while there is substantial private-sector interest in building the Arctic gas pipeline, we will lose an important opportunity to bolster our national energy security in natural gas. If we do not bring the Alaska gas to market, then our growing demand for gas will be met by large-scale import of liquefied natural gas. At $3 or less per million BTU, imported LNG will be cheaper than Alaska gas. But it would be foolhardy to look at the issue solely through the prism of short-term economics. We are already more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. If we do nothing about the Arctic gas, we could wind up being similarly dependent on foreign natural gas, from many of the same OPEC countries from which we import oil. That is an economic and national security issue. We face a clear moment of decision. The Chairman's mark that I will bring before the Committee will contain authorizing provisions to streamline the regulatory approval process to move forward with the pipeline. We may find a mechanism to ensure that the domestic option for a pipeline route is chosen. I hope to be able to work with my colleague from Alaska during the mark-up to help make that happen. The second key initiative for domestic production is to undertake a top-to-bottom review of both federal and State royalty and tax policy on domestic oil and gas production. Our current policies were put in place when the U.S. had abundant and easily accessible reserves. We have fewer such reserves now, and while technology for finding oil has continued to improve, we should consider whether the financial structure we have in place should change to one that enhances the economics of exploring for oil and gas in more challenging geological formations. It should also take into account the boom-and-bust nature of the industry, and provide incentives to maintain domestic production when prices are low. The third proposal is to provide adequate funding for the federal programs that actually make new leases for oil and gas available to domestic producers. For all the rhetoric from the administration about the need to boost production, it has not asked for enough money in order to bring this about. The result is likely to be further delays and frustration on the part of U.S. oil and gas producers. In the mark that I will present to the committee, we will authorize a higher level of funding for the necessary personnel to make the decisions and to process applications for domestic production. The area of electricity, as I mentioned earlier in these remarks, is the next major topic that we will take up in the markup. We do need to provide for reliable and diverse electric power generation and distribution sources in the country. Electricity is a central part of modern life. Yet our electric system largely operates on a design that is nearly a century old. There are many problems in our electricity markets that need to be addressed. The problems faced by California and the West earlier this year should be a wakeup call to all of us. What the electricity crisis in California showed is that the institutions that developed in the last century have not evolved enough to ensure reliable and affordable supplies of electricity. We face a crucial turning point. During the next few years, billions of dollars of investment will be planned and committed to electric generation and transmission. Those investments will have a 30- to 50-year lifespan. Will we put in place a structure to maximize the chances that investments will go to new technologies that will give consumers real choices over their energy use or will Congress, by its inaction, perpetuate obsolete frameworks for managing electricity markets, with the result that we wind up with little improvement in the status quo? I believe that we in Congress and the President have a great opportunity to be visionary about the future of electricity. A transmission grid that is open to a wide variety of generation options, including distributed generation, will ensure the power quality and efficiency that our 21st century society will need in order to sustain our economic prosperity. That opportunity creates a great duty on the part of Congress and the President to focus on electricity as a major part of comprehensive energy legislation. Our task must be to build a regulatory structure that has adequate authority to resolve market defects, without interfering unduly in those markets. I believe we need to move forward now with a legislative solution to these problems. To leave electricity legislation for another day would be to perpetuate an obsolete system that will not provide the reliability, quality, affordability, and choice that consumers will want and need. The changes that I believe are needed, and that we are going to be trying to address in the chairman's mark, include the following: First, we will try to clarify who has jurisdiction over regulating electricity transmission in interstate commerce. That is a key part of what the legislation will do. That role is assigned to the Federal energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC. FERC will be given authority to ensure that all electric transmitting organizations in interstate commerce play by a consistent set of fair rules. Second, the chairman's mark will give FERC the responsibility for taking the current voluntary system for promoting reliability in electric transmission and making adherence to reliability rules mandatory. Third, the chairman's mark will give the FERC the tools to ensure that competitive markets work well to provide customers with affordable electricity. Fourth, the chairman's mark will address the tough issue of siting new transmission facilities. This is something the President has indicated his support for. A national transmission grid is a necessity, but cannot occur without a new approach to transmission planning, expansion, and siting. Federal eminent domain, by itself, is not likely to lead to an effective approach to meeting this need. What is needed is to use federal eminent domain as a backstop to a more cooperative, regionally based approach to transmission and siting issues. Thus, the chairman's mark will rely on regional transmission organizations to do the bulk of transmission planning, expansion and siting. Only if those regional entities are stymied will a federal eminent domain authority be invoked, and that authority will be used only to implement the decisions taken regionally. The chairman's mark will include a repeal of the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, or PUHCA, but the protections in that act will be replaced by giving FERC jurisdiction over mergers of holding companies that own utilities and over acquisitions of generation assets. Finally, the chairman's mark will ensure that there is transparent information on market transactions. As part of a balanced and comprehensive legislative solution, the chairman's mark also includes numerous benefits and protections for consumers, so that we don't repeat the mistakes of telecommunications deregulation. These include an emphasis on ensuring future access by rural, remote, and Indian communities to electricity; protection of consumers from unfair trade practices; and a Public Benefits Fund to ensure that there is a way to fund electricity programs in the public interest. The chairman's mark also includes a series of provisions to ensure that we have a greater role in our electricity generating system of the future for renewables and distributed generation, while maintaining the contribution made by existing sources of baseload generation, such as hydropower and nuclear. Among the important tools for making sure we have diversity in our sources of electricity is a renewable portfolio standard, uniform interconnection standards to the electric grid, greater flexibility and predictability to the process of relicensing hydroelectric dams, and a reauthorization of parts of the Price- Anderson Act. Finally, a common thread among may of the provisions that I have mentioned in this chamber today and that we will be considering in the bill is perhaps the most important public policy challenges of the 21st century, and that is climate change. Climate change policy and energy policy are inseparably linked, because energy production and the use of energy are leading sources of greenhouse gases that affect the atmosphere. The Senate must ensure that the energy legislation it passes makes a meaningful, positive contribution to dealing with this issue. Many of the provisions that I have already discussed--energy efficiency, the focus on more renewables--make a contribution to this goal. The mark that we will be considering in committee will contain some additional provisions to promote better information and policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Energy policy is a difficult and complex topic. Getting to a solution that gives America a vibrant energy infrastructure and the right policies for the 21st century will require careful work on complicated issues. Our Nation's future economic prosperity, and the jobs of millions of Americans, are at stake. I hope that the approach taken in the Senate combines a thoughtful analysis of our current energy challenges with a willingness to take some bold policy steps to address those challenges. That certainly is the spirit in which I will be making proposals before the committee. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in the Senate to produce constructive legislation for the future of our country. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and the Committee on Indian Affairs have scheduled a joint hearing to receive testimony on legislative proposals relating to the development of energy resources on Indian and Alaska Native lands, including the generation and transmission of electricity. The hearing will take place on September 12 at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn. Patty Beneke, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Patty Beneke of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (202/224-5451) or Karen Atkinson of the Committee on Indian Affairs (202/224-2251).

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Rural States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration Act of 2001,'' with Senators Domenici and Rockefeller. This Act would create a demonstration program to show that physician shortage, recruitment, and retention problems may be ameliorated in demonstration States by developing a training program and loan repayment program that will result in statewide physician population growth. The problem of recruiting and retaining physicians, particularly in some specialties, has reached crisis proportions in my State. There are very few small town residents who don't have a story to tell about losing a cherished doctor or traveling vast distances to see a specialist. And even in New Mexico's most populous city, Albuquerque, the number of practicing neurosurgeons can be counted on one hand. Not so long ago there were 11 of them practicing there. We know that the surgeons in Santa Fe are struggling to recruit a new general surgeon, as are many other communities throughout the State. We know that the thought of having an additional psychiatrist in Las Cruces would be considered by many to be an unrealistic fantasy. I am certain that many Senators from States that are demographically more similar to New Mexico than they are to Washington, D.C. can truly understand the discrepancy in physician recruitment and retention. Anyone representing a rural State knows that a certain amount of physician turn over is inevitable and understandable. It is very important, however, to anticipate how we can ensure an adequate supply of physicians in the future. Payment for Graduate Medical Education slots has been frozen at the number of physicians who were being trained in 1996. Within the past six months we have been told that the funding for training family physicians, general internists, pediatricians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals should be drastically cut because ``today a physician shortage no longer exists''. Although aggregate data appears to support the notion that we need not be concerned about a physician shortage, this does not reflect what is happening at home. Health professional shortages continue to exist in geographically isolated and economically disadvantaged areas. This maldistribution problem is exacerbated by market forces that often entice physicians to urban or suburban areas where higher income levels can be achieved. The Medicare payment formula further contributes to the problem by assessing a lower cost of living adjustment in rural areas and, accordingly, decreasing the Medicare payment rate in the very area where the physician shortage exists in the first place. Fortunately we know that economics is only one of the many factors that physicians consider when they are choosing a place to practice. Family considerations and lifestyle issues also play a vital role in this important decision. One of the best predictors of where a physician will practice is directly related to the location of their post- graduate medical education--they are likely to stay within a sixty-mile radius of where they did their residency training. This fact, provides us with a focus for this demonstration project. This particular piece of legislation creates a demonstration program in nine States that will correct the flaws in the system in two ways, and then will track health professionals in each demonstration State through a state-specific health professions database. Demonstration States would be identified using three criteria including an uninsured rate above the U.S. average, lack of primary care access above the U.S. average, and a combined Medicare and Medicaid population above 20 percent. The first flaw in the system is the capitation limit placed on all residency graduate medical education positions in 1996. Whereas this action may have been appropriate for some States, maybe even most States, it has been extremely damaging to rural States where we know physicians are in short supply. This bill allows a sponsoring institution to increase the number of residency and fellowship positions by up to 50 percent if the sponsoring institution agrees to require that each resident or fellow in the affected training programs would spend an aggregate of 10 percent of their time during training providing supervised specialty services to underserved and rural community populations outside of their training institution. A waiver from this rural outreach requirement can be granted by the Secretary for certain hospital-based subspecialists, like neurosurgeons, if the demonstration State can demonstrate a shortage of physicians in that specialty statewide. The second flaw in the system revolves around the debt load carried by many physicians when they finish their training program. Currently there are several Federal and State programs that will help repay education loans. The problem lies in the fact that only primary care specialties currently qualify for these loan repayment programs. This legislation creates a similar loan repayment program for underserved specialists who agree to practice for one year in the demonstration State for each year of education loans that are repaid. Thus, this demonstration project does two critical things for recruitment and retention in rural States. It exposes to underserved areas that they may never have otherwise been exposed to, which increases the possibility that they will stay and practice there. It also relieves some of their economic burden from loans which may help to moderate the effect of lower Medicare reimbursement rates in rural areas. I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with the senior Senator from Nevada, very important legislation to remedy an unnecessary impediment to natural gas production. In 1997, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that hydraulic fracturing, a process for stimulating development in certain types of gas wells, constituted as ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, the State of Alabama was required to establish standards by which all hydraulic fracturing operations associated with natural gas development would be required to obtain a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is an expensive and time consuming process, and one that appears unnecessary for protection of underground sources of drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency argued before the Eleventh Circuit that hydraulic fracturing did not pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water, and should not be subject to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Eleventh Circuit did not find that hydraulic fracturing in fact threatened underground sources of drinking water. Instead, the Court found only that, as written, the definition of ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act included the process of hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas, including gas from coalbed methane and other unconventional source, is becoming an increasingly important energy source for the United States. It is a clean burning, domestically produced resource, the increased production of which will both enhance our energy security and help us address the problem of global warming. Protection of drinking water is also an issue of the highest priority. However, it appears that the situation created by the Eleventh Circuit's decision is not one that addresses protection of underground sources of drinking water, because the Court did not find any harm to drinking water associated with groundwater production. Instead, this appears to be a situation where a technical reading of a statute creates expensive permitting requirements not associated with a real on-the-ground need. The legislation introduced by myself and Senator Reid will require the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Groundwater Protection Council, affected States, and other entities, as appropriate, to conduct a study on any impacts from hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking water. If the Administration determines that hydraulic fracturing endangers underground sources of drinking water, the Administrator shall regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If, however, the Administrator determines that hydraulic fracturing will not endangered underground sources of drinking water, the Administrator shall not regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In that case, States, including the State of Alabama, shall likewise not be required to regulate hydraulic fracturing as an underground injection under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our bill addresses regulation under section 1421 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300h. Under current law, States are entitled to make a showing under section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300H-4, that for certain oil and gas operations, the State regulations satisfy the statutory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the State will therefore not be required to promulgate regulations under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is our intention that the provisions of Section 1425 apply to hydraulic fracturing operations, and it is our understanding that this is the status of current law. This issue is currently being litigated before the Eleventh Circuit. Should the Eleventh Circuit decide otherwise, we will address the issue as appropriate at that time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce, along with the senior Senator from Nevada, very important legislation to remedy an unnecessary impediment to natural gas production. In 1997, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that hydraulic fracturing, a process for stimulating development in certain types of gas wells, constituted as ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As such, the State of Alabama was required to establish standards by which all hydraulic fracturing operations associated with natural gas development would be required to obtain a permit under the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is an expensive and time consuming process, and one that appears unnecessary for protection of underground sources of drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency argued before the Eleventh Circuit that hydraulic fracturing did not pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water, and should not be subject to regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Eleventh Circuit did not find that hydraulic fracturing in fact threatened underground sources of drinking water. Instead, the Court found only that, as written, the definition of ``underground injection'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act included the process of hydraulic fracturing. Natural gas, including gas from coalbed methane and other unconventional source, is becoming an increasingly important energy source for the United States. It is a clean burning, domestically produced resource, the increased production of which will both enhance our energy security and help us address the problem of global warming. Protection of drinking water is also an issue of the highest priority. However, it appears that the situation created by the Eleventh Circuit's decision is not one that addresses protection of underground sources of drinking water, because the Court did not find any harm to drinking water associated with groundwater production. Instead, this appears to be a situation where a technical reading of a statute creates expensive permitting requirements not associated with a real on-the-ground need. The legislation introduced by myself and Senator Reid will require the EPA, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Energy, the Groundwater Protection Council, affected States, and other entities, as appropriate, to conduct a study on any impacts from hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking water. If the Administration determines that hydraulic fracturing endangers underground sources of drinking water, the Administrator shall regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act. If, however, the Administrator determines that hydraulic fracturing will not endangered underground sources of drinking water, the Administrator shall not regulate it under the Safe Drinking Water Act. In that case, States, including the State of Alabama, shall likewise not be required to regulate hydraulic fracturing as an underground injection under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our bill addresses regulation under section 1421 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300h. Under current law, States are entitled to make a showing under section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300H-4, that for certain oil and gas operations, the State regulations satisfy the statutory requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the State will therefore not be required to promulgate regulations under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is our intention that the provisions of Section 1425 apply to hydraulic fracturing operations, and it is our understanding that this is the status of current law. This issue is currently being litigated before the Eleventh Circuit. Should the Eleventh Circuit decide otherwise, we will address the issue as appropriate at that time. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the ``Rural States Physician Recruitment and Retention Demonstration Act of 2001,'' with Senators Domenici and Rockefeller. This Act would create a demonstration program to show that physician shortage, recruitment, and retention problems may be ameliorated in demonstration States by developing a training program and loan repayment program that will result in statewide physician population growth. The problem of recruiting and retaining physicians, particularly in some specialties, has reached crisis proportions in my State. There are very few small town residents who don't have a story to tell about losing a cherished doctor or traveling vast distances to see a specialist. And even in New Mexico's most populous city, Albuquerque, the number of practicing neurosurgeons can be counted on one hand. Not so long ago there were 11 of them practicing there. We know that the surgeons in Santa Fe are struggling to recruit a new general surgeon, as are many other communities throughout the State. We know that the thought of having an additional psychiatrist in Las Cruces would be considered by many to be an unrealistic fantasy. I am certain that many Senators from States that are demographically more similar to New Mexico than they are to Washington, D.C. can truly understand the discrepancy in physician recruitment and retention. Anyone representing a rural State knows that a certain amount of physician turn over is inevitable and understandable. It is very important, however, to anticipate how we can ensure an adequate supply of physicians in the future. Payment for Graduate Medical Education slots has been frozen at the number of physicians who were being trained in 1996. Within the past six months we have been told that the funding for training family physicians, general internists, pediatricians, dentists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and other health professionals should be drastically cut because ``today a physician shortage no longer exists''. Although aggregate data appears to support the notion that we need not be concerned about a physician shortage, this does not reflect what is happening at home. Health professional shortages continue to exist in geographically isolated and economically disadvantaged areas. This maldistribution problem is exacerbated by market forces that often entice physicians to urban or suburban areas where higher income levels can be achieved. The Medicare payment formula further contributes to the problem by assessing a lower cost of living adjustment in rural areas and, accordingly, decreasing the Medicare payment rate in the very area where the physician shortage exists in the first place. Fortunately we know that economics is only one of the many factors that physicians consider when they are choosing a place to practice. Family considerations and lifestyle issues also play a vital role in this important decision. One of the best predictors of where a physician will practice is directly related to the location of their post- graduate medical education--they are likely to stay within a sixty-mile radius of where they did their residency training. This fact, provides us with a focus for this demonstration project. This particular piece of legislation creates a demonstration program in nine States that will correct the flaws in the system in two ways, and then will track health professionals in each demonstration State through a state-specific health professions database. Demonstration States would be identified using three criteria including an uninsured rate above the U.S. average, lack of primary care access above the U.S. average, and a combined Medicare and Medicaid population above 20 percent. The first flaw in the system is the capitation limit placed on all residency graduate medical education positions in 1996. Whereas this action may have been appropriate for some States, maybe even most States, it has been extremely damaging to rural States where we know physicians are in short supply. This bill allows a sponsoring institution to increase the number of residency and fellowship positions by up to 50 percent if the sponsoring institution agrees to require that each resident or fellow in the affected training programs would spend an aggregate of 10 percent of their time during training providing supervised specialty services to underserved and rural community populations outside of their training institution. A waiver from this rural outreach requirement can be granted by the Secretary for certain hospital-based subspecialists, like neurosurgeons, if the demonstration State can demonstrate a shortage of physicians in that specialty statewide. The second flaw in the system revolves around the debt load carried by many physicians when they finish their training program. Currently there are several Federal and State programs that will help repay education loans. The problem lies in the fact that only primary care specialties currently qualify for these loan repayment programs. This legislation creates a similar loan repayment program for underserved specialists who agree to practice for one year in the demonstration State for each year of education loans that are repaid. Thus, this demonstration project does two critical things for recruitment and retention in rural States. It exposes to underserved areas that they may never have otherwise been exposed to, which increases the possibility that they will stay and practice there. It also relieves some of their economic burden from loans which may help to moderate the effect of lower Medicare reimbursement rates in rural areas. I request unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Lugar, Torricelli, and Corzine entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2001'' would improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted at children to dramatically reduce the number of uninsured children in this country. This legislation is a companion bill to S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001,'' which would expand and improve coverage to children and pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. The legislation provides $100 million in grants annually from the unspent allocations in CHIP to community-based public or non-profit organizations, including community health centers, children's hospitals, disproportionate share hospitals, local and county government, and public health departments, for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts. The bill further clarifies that the outstationed workers requirement in Medicaid, which requires that eligibility workers be available in the public in our nation's community health centers and safety net hospitals, shall also enroll children in CHIP if they are eligible for coverage under that program as well. As you are aware, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was the largest expansion of health coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The program, designed to cover low-income children under age 18, provides on average $4 billion a year to the states to either expand Medicaid, establish a separate state program apart from Medicaid, or a combination of the two approaches. Unfortunately, according to an Urban Institute report entitled How Familiar Are Low-Income Parents with Medicaid and SCHIP?, it is estimated that up to 80 percent of the 11 million uninsured children in the country are eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. Instead, as the report notes, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.'' The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. According to the study, ``Only 38 percent of low-income uninsured children have parents who have heard of Medicaid or SCHIP programs and who also understand the basic eligibility rules,'' Moreover, less than half of parents, 47 percent, of low income uninsured children were even aware of the separate SCHIP program. As the authors conclude, ``For SCHIP expansions to reduce uninsurance among children, it is critical that families know about the coverage available through separate non-Medicaid SCHIP programs . . . .'' In addition, senior health researcher Peter J. Cunningham at the Center for Studying Health System Change recently published an article in Health Affairs entitled ``Targeting Communities With High Rates of Uninsured Children'' that highlights that the ``key to getting children insured'' is improved ``enrollment outreach.'' As the article notes, ``Policymakers have understood from the beginning that the key to the success of SCHIP is in getting eligible children to enroll . . . The results of this study suggest that outreach activities and other efforts to stimulate enrollment need to be especially focused in high-uninsurance areas, both because they include a large concentration of the nation's uninsured children and because take-up rates of public and private coverage have historically been lower in these areas.'' Cunningham particularly notes that children in high-uninsured communities are disproportionately Hispanic. As he points out, ``Hispanics typically have lower take-up rates for health insurance programs for which they are eligible. This could be attributable to immigration concerns, language barriers, lack of awareness of public programs, or not understanding the roll that insurance coverage plays in the United States in securing access to high-quality health care.'' As a result, the legislation also contains a provision giving priority to community-based organizations in communities with high rates of eligible but unenrolled children and in areas with high rates of families for whom English is not their primary language. It is certainly my desire for programs such as ``promotoras'' or community health advisors to receive these grants, as they have been incredibly effective in New Mexico in improving health insurance coverage to children. An estimated 11 million children under age 19 were without health insurance in 1999, including 129,000 in New Mexico, representing 15 percent of all children in the United States and 22 percent of children in New Mexico, the fourth highest rate of uninsured children in the country. An estimated 103,000 of those children are in families with incomes below 200 percent of poverty, so the majority of those children are already eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid. Why is this important? According to the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, uninsured children, compared to the insured, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. In fact, one study has ``estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent.'' This expansion of coverage for children occurred, I would add, during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action. Mr. President, I urge this legislation's immediate passage. We can and must do better for our children. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a field hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, August 7, at 10:00 a.m. in the Judicial Room of the Best Western Doublewood Inn, 1400 East Interchange Avenue, Bismarck, North Dakota, 58501. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony from PMAs, IOUs and Electric Cooperatives on electric transmission infrastructure and investment needs. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, 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 Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510, ATTN: Leon Lowery. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at 202/224-2209 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6722.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Subcommittee on Water and Power has scheduled a field hearing in Seattle, Washington to identify the role of the BPA in promoting energy conservation and renewables. The hearing will take place on the morning of Monday, August 13. The location in Seattle has not yet been determined. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, 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 Subcommittee on Water and Power, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Deborah Estes at 202/224-5360 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6722. subcommittee on water and power

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a field hearing in Las Cruces, New Mexico to identify issues related to the water supply challenges facing the southern New Mexico border region. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, August 14, at 9:00 a.m. at New Mexico State University, in Las Cruces, NM. Those wishing to submit written statements on the subject matter of this hearing should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Mike Connor at 202/224-5479.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the bipartisan legislation I am introducing today with Senators Lugar, Torricelli, and Corzine entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act of 2001'' would improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted at children to dramatically reduce the number of uninsured children in this country. This legislation is a companion bill to S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001,'' which would expand and improve coverage to children and pregnant women through Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP. The legislation provides $100 million in grants annually from the unspent allocations in CHIP to community-based public or non-profit organizations, including community health centers, children's hospitals, disproportionate share hospitals, local and county government, and public health departments, for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts. The bill further clarifies that the outstationed workers requirement in Medicaid, which requires that eligibility workers be available in the public in our nation's community health centers and safety net hospitals, shall also enroll children in CHIP if they are eligible for coverage under that program as well. As you are aware, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which was passed as part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, was the largest expansion of health coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The program, designed to cover low-income children under age 18, provides on average $4 billion a year to the states to either expand Medicaid, establish a separate state program apart from Medicaid, or a combination of the two approaches. Unfortunately, according to an Urban Institute report entitled How Familiar Are Low-Income Parents with Medicaid and SCHIP?, it is estimated that up to 80 percent of the 11 million uninsured children in the country are eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP. Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. Instead, as the report notes, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.'' The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. According to the study, ``Only 38 percent of low-income uninsured children have parents who have heard of Medicaid or SCHIP programs and who also understand the basic eligibility rules,'' Moreover, less than half of parents, 47 percent, of low income uninsured children were even aware of the separate SCHIP program. As the authors conclude, ``For SCHIP expansions to reduce uninsurance among children, it is critical that families know about the coverage available through separate non-Medicaid SCHIP programs . . . .'' In addition, senior health researcher Peter J. Cunningham at the Center for Studying Health System Change recently published an article in Health Affairs entitled ``Targeting Communities With High Rates of Uninsured Children'' that highlights that the ``key to getting children insured'' is improved ``enrollment outreach.'' As the article notes, ``Policymakers have understood from the beginning that the key to the success of SCHIP is in getting eligible children to enroll . . . The results of this study suggest that outreach activities and other efforts to stimulate enrollment need to be especially focused in high-uninsurance areas, both because they include a large concentration of the nation's uninsured children and because take-up rates of public and private coverage have historically been lower in these areas.'' Cunningham particularly notes that children in high-uninsured communities are disproportionately Hispanic. As he points out, ``Hispanics typically have lower take-up rates for health insurance programs for which they are eligible. This could be attributable to immigration concerns, language barriers, lack of awareness of public programs, or not understanding the roll that insurance coverage plays in the United States in securing access to high-quality health care.'' As a result, the legislation also contains a provision giving priority to community-based organizations in communities with high rates of eligible but unenrolled children and in areas with high rates of families for whom English is not their primary language. It is certainly my desire for programs such as ``promotoras'' or community health advisors to receive these grants, as they have been incredibly effective in New Mexico in improving health insurance coverage to children. An estimated 11 million children under age 19 were without health insurance in 1999, including 129,000 in New Mexico, representing 15 percent of all children in the United States and 22 percent of children in New Mexico, the fourth highest rate of uninsured children in the country. An estimated 103,000 of those children are in families with incomes below 200 percent of poverty, so the majority of those children are already eligible for but unenrolled in Medicaid. Why is this important? According to the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine, uninsured children, compared to the insured, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. In fact, one study has ``estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent.'' This expansion of coverage for children occurred, I would add, during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action. Mr. President, I urge this legislation's immediate passage. We can and must do better for our children. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, during the last Congress, I introduced the Bataan-Corregidor Veterans Compensation Act to recognize American veterans who served at Bataan and Corregidor during World War II and were captured, held as prisoners of war, and forced to perform slave labor to support the Japanese war effort. That bill helped bring attention to the plight of Americans captured and enslaved in the Pacific theater at a time when our Government undertook important efforts on behalf of enslaved victims of Nazi oppression in Europe. I believe that our government should also take action on behalf of those who were enslaved in the Pacific theater. Since the waning days of those heroes are quickly passing, the time to take action on this important matter is now. Today I am introducing an updated version of last year's bill, now entitled the World War II Pacific Theater Veterans Compensation Act, to acknowledge the contributions of all ex-prisoners of war in the Pacific who were forced into slave labor by the Japanese. The bill would award a gratuity of $20,000 to each surviving veteran, government, or government contractor employee who was imprisoned by the Japanese during World War II and forced to perform slave labor to support Japan's war effort. The bill would also extend that gratuity to surviving spouses of such veterans or employees. I believe that this bill is both necessary and appropriate, particularly as those Americans who sacrificed so much approach their final years. Why is it necessary? First, because Americans who were enslaved by Japan have never been adequately compensated for the excruciating sacrifices they made while in Japanese military and company prisons and labor camps. In the War Claims Acts of 1948 and 1952, our Government paid former U.S. prisoners of war $1.00 per day for ``missed meals'' during their captivity, and later, $1.50 per day for ``forced labor, pain, and suffering.'' Even those paltry compensations were not widely known about or received by all veterans who qualified for them. Second, this bill is necessary since ongoing efforts to obtain appropriate compensation from the government of Japan, or from Japanese companies through litigation, have been unsuccessful and are not likely to succeed in a timely enough manner to compensate surviving veterans or others who would be eligible. My colleagues might ask, ``Why is this bill appropriate?'' If enacted into law, it would have our own government recognize the vital military contributions made by members of the Armed Forces and civilians employed by the government in the Pacific theater, and would compensate those heroes for the many sacrifices they were forced to make at the hands of their Japanese captors. From December 1941 to April 1942, for example, American military forces stationed in the Philippines fought valiantly for almost six months against overwhelming Japanese military forces on the Bataan peninsula. As a result of that prolonged conflict, U.S. forces prevented Japan from achieving its strategic objective of capturing Australia and thereby dooming Allied hopes in the Pacific theater from the outset of the war. Once captured by the Japanese, American prisoners of war in the Philippines endured the infamous ``Death March'' during which approximately 730 Americans died to the notorious Japanese prison camp north of Manila. Of the survivors of the March, more than 5,000 more Americans perished during the first six months of captivity. The Japanese forced many of those who survived captivity to embark on ``hell ships''--unmarked merchant ships--to be transported to Japan to work as slave laborers in company-owned mines, shipyards, and factories. How tragic and cruel it was that many of our own men perished in those unmarked vessels, victims of attacks by American military aircraft and submarines who unknowingly caused their demise! The stories of other American military and civilian employees captured by the Japanese at Wake Island, Java, Manchuria, Taiwan, and other locations in the Pacific and enslaved to support the war effort are equally compelling. This bill is also appropriate because it reflects international precedents by Allied nations to honor their enslaved veterans in the way which I propose in this bill. Allied governments, including Canada, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have authorized compensation gratuities. In 1998, the Canadian Government authorized the payment of $15,600 (Canadian dollars) to veterans who were captured in Hong Kong and enslaved by the Japanese. Last October, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced a multi-million pound compensation fund for former enslaved Japanese prisoners of war in recognition of their heroic experiences. Given those important precedents by our Allies, is it no less appropriate for our own nation to compensate those who gave so much to defend and preserve our freedom? Surely, the denial of personal freedom; the severe physical punishment; the lifetime of health problems many suffered as a result of prolonged malnutrition and physical beatings--as well as the impact of those experiences on family and loved ones--merit the recognition that I propose in this legislation. I believe the Congress should act as soon as possible to enact this legislation into law. These brave heroes are leaving us at an increasing rate each year while the court system struggles to resolve the compensation claims of worthy American heroes. The time to act is now, else justice and honor may not ever be served. I thank Senator Hatch for agreeing to cosponsor this legislation, and I urge my fellow Senators to support it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to join my colleagues, Senators Jeffords and Hatch, as an original co-sponsor of the Conservation Tax Incentives Act of 2001. The great conservationist Aldo Leopold once stated. ``That land is a community is the basic concept of ecology, but that land is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethics'' This legislation is in keeping with the conservation ethic so eloquently articulated by Mr. Leopold decades ago. The bill that we are introducing today will greatly expand the benefits of our existing conservation land easement laws which will have an enormous impact on the preservation of our nation's forests, prairies, deserts and open space. This legislation will save millions of acres of our nation's land for future generations by reducing by 50 percent the tax on capital gains that would normally be owned on a sale provided the land or easements are sold to public or private conservation entities for conservation purposes. These types of sales of conservation and preservation organizations will enhance opportunities for recreation, maintain open space, help to retain lands in agricultural production, and preserve important habitat. Whether it is riparian habitat in New Mexico, mixed grass prairie in the Midwest, open space in California and the foothills of the Rocky Mountains, or woodlands of the Southeast, this legislation would provide enhanced conservation through the voluntary actions of citizens. It would help to address the dramatic loss of farmland acreage to development. It would ensure that important habitat for wildlife is conserved. It would eliminate tax disincentive that keeps landowners who wish to see their land preserved from reaching their goal. This bill will have positive impacts in New Mexico. The legislation will help landowners who wish to ensure that their lands remain in ranching in future decades or who want to preserve other open lands for future generations. The bill would provide a boost to the efforts of state and local government to stretch limited conservation dollars. And it will enhance the ability of local land conservation organizations to craft voluntary agreements with landowners to conserve lands. I believe enactment of this legislation would have significant consequences for our nation's landscape for generations to come. I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure its passage.