Pete Domenici

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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

Mr. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI. 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. DOMENICI

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOMENICI. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

Mr. DOMENICI. May I ask the Senator a question?

Mr. DOMENICI. 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?

Mr. DOMENICI. 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?

Mr. DOMENICI. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

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

Mr. DOMENICI. Between now and 11:15?

Mr. DOMENICI. I have no objection.

Mr. DOMENICI. 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.

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

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.