Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

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

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on March 26, NATO signed the Protocols on the Accession of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Romania. This is an important step toward the full membership in NATO for these countries. Soon, the Senate will debate whether to approve admission for these seven new and vibrant democracies. These countries have thrown off the shackles of communism. They are pressing forward, and I am confident their admission to NATO will only make that great alliance stronger and more robust. The enlargement process presents a historic opportunity for NATO to strengthen security and peace, as well as a significant step toward fulfilling the vision of a Europe whole and free. The new members have proved willing and capable of adding value to NATO's missions, and they strongly reinforce the importance of a trans-Atlantic link. The aspirant members have long contributed to NATO and allied missions, and they will bolster similar NATO and allied operations in the future. They have provided logistical support and troops in combat or peace support missions in Western Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Romania, for example, currently has over 1,300 troops engaged in allied missions, including a combat battalion that carries out operations shoulder to shoulder with U.S. forces in Afghanistan, and a NBC unit in Iraq. Additionally, the Romanian Government will shelter up to 1,500 war refugees from Iraq if needed. Romania and Bulgaria are currently providing host nation support at the Black Sea airbase and seaport bases. Moreover, Slovakia and the Baltic countries have provided peacekeeping troops, air surveillance support, as well as NBC specialists. I look forward to the debate in the U.S. Senate on ratification of the protocols for NATO expansion. NATO expansion will prove beneficial to those countries seeking entrance to NATO and the those countries already in the alliance.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, our Nation has always risen to the challenges of war. During such times, Congress has spared no expense to make sure that our dedicated armed services personnel have everything they need to fight and win. We will always meet this obligation. But the men and women on the battlefield have families back home and there is more that we can do for them. I am talking about the families of the troops from Barksdale, Belle Chasse, and Fort Polk in Louisiana, as well as our guardsmen from all across the State. Every one of my colleagues represents military families. We need to make sure that we support them as well. That is why today I would like to add my voice of strong support for the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act of 2003. I congratulate Senator Grassley, the Finance Committee chairman, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member, for bringing this bill to the floor today. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. This bill contains several provisions that would reduce taxes for members of our armed services. The bill would clarify that childcare benefits provided to military personnel are to be excluded from income, a provision based on legislation that I introduced earlier in this Congress, S. 235. In addition, the bill excludes all death gratuity payments from the income of surviving family members. Military and Foreign Service personnel would receive capital gains tax relief when they have to sell a home and move because of reassignment or deployment orders. National Guard and Reserve members would receive an above-the- line deduction for overnight expenses when they travel more than 100 miles from home to attend National Guard and Reserve meetings. There are other important provisions in this bill that give needed tax relief to our families. I had hoped to include language in this bill to give a much-needed tax break to the employers for Reserve personnel. When a reservist gets called up, as many have, to go fight in Iraq, employers have to keep his or her job open, but do not have to pay a salary to the reservist while they are gone. This can cause an extreme hardship on a reservist's family. While the reservist receives military pay, in many cases this is much less than their civilian pay. Some employers, but not all, will pay the difference between the civilian and military pay, but they do not receive any benefit for this act of patriotism. I introduced S. 442, the Reservist and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act, to give a 50 percent tax credit to these patriotic employers. I regret that we were not able to include my bill in the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. But I deeply appreciate the chairman and ranking member for their commitment to address my tax credit proposal in the future reconciliation package. I look forward to working with them. Again our men and women in the Armed Forces and their families deserve our support. For all these reasons and more, this legislation deserves to pass. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I know that my friends and colleagues, Senator Grassley from Iowa and Senator Baucus from Montana, share my concerns about the safety and welfare of our troops in the field and their families at home. With the deployment of the 389th Engineer Battalion and the 106th Aviation Unit from the Iowa Guard and 495th Transportation Company and 411th Support Detachment from the Montana Guard, no one can doubt that the people of the Hawkeye and Big Sky States are making very important contributions to our national defense. However, I wonder if my friends saw the article in the Washington Post on March 4, entitled ``Called-Up Reservists Take Big Hit in Wallet; Families Struggle on Military Salary.'' I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record.

Ms. LANDRIEU. This Post story captures the reality of reservists who are called to war and are asked to make the double sacrifice of enormous pay cuts to serve their country. Because of stories like these in my home State, and across the country, I introduced S. 442, the Reservists and Guardsmen Pay Protection Act. This bill would provide a tax credit to employers who take the patriotic step of covering the difference between their employee's pay and as a civilian, and their pay as a soldier. The tax cut would cover 50 percent of the amount, and last for 1 year. Additionally, the Senate just passed a budget resolution that calls for $350 billion in tax cuts over 10 years. Certainly, we should ensure that there is room in this tax cut to both promote economic growth and benefit the men and women in uniform willing to risk their lives in defense of this great Nation. As the chairman and ranking member know, I have been a strong supporter of Senate Bill 351, the Armed Forces Tax Fairness Act. It contains a provision that I introduced as separate legislation relating to dependent care benefits for military personnel, and I very much appreciate Senator Grassley's and Senator Baucus' effort to include these provisions in the bill. However, I think it would be a terrible mistake to ignore this looming question that affects so many Reservists and Guardsmen, especially after agreeing to $350 billion in tax cuts. S. 442 is both stimulative and necessary for the men and women on the front lines, as well as their families back at home. So, I ask my friends, the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee, can anything be done to address this problem?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for Kevin Avery to be granted the privilege of the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a moment?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. I will take those 25 seconds, if I could. Mr. President, I thank the leadership for this discussion. I think it has been helpful. I look forward to working with my colleagues to fashion a remedy. But at the appropriate time, I will insist on a vote on this amendment because in order for us to put a budget together, we have to have some money reserved for all of these changes that we are talking about. I hope, over the course of the day, we can come to some resolution so that the Guard and Reserve can depend on something in this budget.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, in just a few moments as we get underway to debate a series of amendments to the budget bill, I am going to be offering an amendment. Under the rules, I will have just a minute to speak on it, so I thought I would take this time while we are getting organized to describe a little more detail about the Landrieu amendment regarding the Guard and Reserve. There have been any number of articles--I see the chairman of the Armed Services Committee here, and he is well aware of this--there have been any number of articles written as of late about the tremendous weight the National Guard and Reserve are carrying in our current war against terror, whether it be the campaign underway in Iraq, the supporting of a civilian government in Afghanistan, the carrying out of our missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, or guarding the homefront right here; whether it is in New Orleans or Baton Rouge or sites in Maryland or Virginia or your home State, Mr. President, or overseas. The Guard and Reserve are doing a magnificent job. These are men and women who maybe served part of their time in the military for a few years and then, because of other family commitments or other calls on their talents, went into the private sector. Some of them started their own businesses. They come from a wide range of backgrounds. You yourself, Mr. President, served in the National Guard and Reserve. There are several Members of Congress who have not only carried out their job here, serving as Member of Congress, but also serve in this capacity. You are to be commended. I know you have spoken out, Mr. President, on many instances about the problems that are arising in the sense that we are calling on the National Guard and Reserve over and over again. Their deployments are longer and our compensation to them, our benefit package to them, the way we supply them equipment, in my opinion--and an opinion that I think you share and is shared on both the Republican and Democratic sides--is not supportive to the degree that they, basically, are supporting us. I guess I could put it that way. We ask these men and women to go for longer deployments, more frequent deployments, and not only put their life on the line but their livelihood on the line. We need to keep up our commitment on the benefit compensation end, on the financing side. In a moment--I know I only have a minute or so--whenever the leadership feels it appropriate for my amendment to be taken up, I am going to suggest we make a very modest change in the budget submitted to us by the President. Of course, there are parts of that budget I support. There are some parts that I think could be improved. That is what the amendment process is all about. This is one of those areas that I think can be improved, to take $10 billion out of the tax cut portion that is not the stimulative part but the unreconciled portion of the tax cut, and add basically $1 billion a year over 10 years to provide critically needed equipment for our Guard and Reserve units. There are two units now that are being forward deployed to Iraq that, under the President's budget as submitted--and I believe one unit is from Georgia and one unit, I say to the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, is from Virginia--those units will be decommissioned. There is not even enough money in the current budget we are debating to keep those units fighting and forward. That is what my amendment attempts to do. It adds money. I would like to get more, but we are trying to be reasonable in this request because the Guard is really carrying a tremendous weight. They are happy to do it. They are proud to serve. They are not whining and complaining. But we should be supporting them. I think that is what we should be about today. I thank you for letting me explain the Landrieu amendment. At the appropriate time, it will come up in the list of amendments. But now, more than ever, we are depending on them. Let us let them know they can depend on us.

Ms. LANDRIEU

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

Ms. LANDRIEU. Madam President, I thank my colleagues and particularly Senator Durbin for his work in working out this amendment. It is for the Guard and Reserve units that have been called up. This amendment is crucial. It is important that we adopt it for a number of reasons. No. 1, from 1945 to 1990, a period of 45 years, our Guard and Reserve units were called up four times. In the last 13 years they have been called up eight times. They represent a growing and necessary component of our force protection for our Nation, both abroad and at home. Unfortunately, our commitment to their budget has not kept up with the contributions they are making. This amendment attempts to begin to fill that gap. I submit for the Record, because this is a $1 billion amendment, a list of equipment needs that could be provided by this amendment. I suggest the $1 billion could be for this or something comparable to it. I ask unanimous consent that be printed in the Record.

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

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

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

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity. Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today. Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State. There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today. First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service. FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana. To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail. My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity. A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent. Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions. Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment. The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent. What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State. To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress. Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities. Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities. Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, today I introduce the ``Federal Power Act Amendment of 2003.'' This bill is intended to ensure for the future the two things that matter most to all electricity customers: affordable electricity and reliable electricity. Electricity users, my constituents and your constituents, wake up in the morning, flip a switch and expect their lights to turn on. They also expect that each month when their electricity bill arrives in the mail that they'll pay a reasonable price for that service. Customers don't care where the electrons come from or what new scheme the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has in mind for the electricity industry or really much of anything else. And frankly, as a representative of nearly four and a half million people in my home State of Louisiana, affordable and reliable electricity are my primary concerns when it comes to electricity policy, and that is the purpose for which I offer legislation today. Electricity prices in Louisiana, and throughout the Southeast for that matter, are some of the lowest in the nation. According to the North American Electric Reliability Council's most recent reliability assessment report, the Southeast region is expected to enjoy, at least for the near term, ``adequate delivery capacity to support forecast demand and energy requirements under normal and contingency conditions.'' In other words, electricity customers in the Southeast should expect to continue to enjoy reliable electric service over the short run. My concern, however, is about the future of retail electricity service in my State. There are several specific areas of concern that I have and that I attempt to address in the legislation being offered today. First, the current balance between State and Federal jurisdiction, which has worked exceedingly well in my home State to provide low-cost and reliable electric service, is in jeopardy. Retail transactions, regulated by State public utility commissions, have historically comprised 90 percent of most utilities' transactions and continue to do so in a majority of States that have not restructured their electricity markets. In fact, there is not a single State in the Southeast with the exception of Virginia that has authorized retail competition. Yet, customers in our region of the country enjoy some of the lowest priced electricity service. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or FERC, however, has issued a proposed rule that would strip States of much of their current jurisdiction over retail electric service, including the transmission component of bundled retail sales. In so doing, FERC would dramatically impair the ability of States to use retail ratemaking to attain local policy goals and to continue to ensure low costs for retail customers. It would also prohibit States from ensuring that retail customers are given a priority for electricity service. As a result, in the event that supplies are tight, retail customers could lose the right to priority service. FERC's proposed plan is a one-size-fits-all scheme on the entire country based on a model that closely resembles the one in place in New Jersey, much of Pennsylvania and Maryland. This model may work well in the Northeast, but it has never been tested or proven viable in any other part of the country. In fact, in a study performed by the consulting firm, Charles River Associates, it was concluded that there is ``considerable uncertainty as to whether [the FERC's proposed plan] would provide greater benefits to the southeast than the implementation costs.'' In Louisiana, and I'm sure in many other States throughout the Southeast and across the country, customers are happy with their electric service. So I ask, what's wrong with the current jurisdictional division between the State and Federal government? If a State or region wants to adopt a new approach, they should be free to do so. But we should not allow a Federal agency to make fundamental policy decisions that are best left to State officials who are accountable to local interests. We know what happened out West when California regulators attempted to institute a sweeping, new plan for its electricity markets. I hope to avoid importing those problems into Louisiana. To address this jurisdictional concern, Section 2 of my bill would clarify the Federal-State arrangement under the Federal Power Act by explicitly stating that States shall have jurisdiction over the retail sale of electric energy, including all component parts of a bundled retail sale. In addition, Section 7 would enable States to continue to allow utilities to reserve transmission capacity for retail customers. This is current law and the current practice in a large number of States, including States with some of the lowest average retail rates and the best history of reliability. As contemplated by Congress when the Federal Power Act was enacted, FERC will retain jurisdiction over the wholesale sales of electric energy and States will retain jurisdiction over retail. My second concern for retail customers is the potential for increased rates caused by the costs of accommodating the ``merchant generation'' that, over the past several years, have been seeking to connect to the electric grid in the Southeast. Though new generation is important to wholesale competition, it is a strain on the transmission system. To accommodate the new generation, new transmission facilities and upgrades to existing facilities are needed. However, customers in Louisiana would be forced to pay for the facilities needed to accommodate the merchant generators, even though most of their customers are out-of-region customers. State regulatory commissioners, understandably, are reluctant to pass transmission construction and upgrade costs off to local customers who are not benefitting from the electricity. Meanwhile energy dependent regions of the country are denied cheap and reliable electricity. A reason they choose to site in Louisiana is because we are blessed with abundant reserves of natural gas--the currently favored fuel source for electric generation. Merchant generators are siting their facilities to gain access to these resources as cheaply as possible, and then are delivering electricity to regions where they can sell electricity at a higher cost. If enough transmission is built to export just a portion of the new generation that is planned to come on-line in Louisiana--10,000 megawatts--the estimated cost would impose a retail rate increase of 5 to 11 percent. Surely, there must be a more equitable way to allocate cost while simultaneously enhancing our transmission capacity. It is not fair to expect customers in energy generating States to keep paying for transmission expansion when this increased transmission is primarily being developed for out-of-region use. In Sections 3 and 4 of this bill, I have attempted to provide a more equitable system. Section 3 would allow for ``voluntary participant-funding'' in which a regional transmission organization may choose to establish a system in which market participants pay for expansions to the transmission network in return for the transmission rights created by the expansion investment. This approach gives proper economic incentives for new generator location and transmission expansion decisions. Similarly, Section 4 of my bill would require the FERC to initiate a proceeding to establish rules for interconnecting new generation to transmission facilities. As in Section 3, any costs made necessary by the interconnecting generator would be funded by the generator, or cost-causer, in return for a right to use such facilities funded by the investment. The third problem that I see is the lack of new investment in transmission facilities. FERC noted in its Electric Transmission Constraint study that transmission congestion costs retail customers across the country millions of dollars every year. Over the past 10 years, demand for electricity has increased by 17 percent while transmission investment during the same period has continuously declined about 45 percent. What is even more troubling is that current demand for electricity is projected to increase by 25 percent over the next 10 years with only a modest increase in transmission capacity. In the short term, this lack of transmission investment and the corresponding lack of transmission capacity, adversely affects the ability of retail customers to realize the benefits of wholesale competition. Over the long term, and if this trend continues, the reliability of the bulk power system could be compromised. In the summer of 2000, transmission constraints limited the ability to sell low-cost power from the Midwest to the South during a period of peak demand, causing higher costs for customers. In the summer of 2001 during the California electricity crisis, transmission constraints along the Path 15 transmission route were a significant cause of the blackouts experienced by customers in the northern parts of that State. To help spur this needed investment in the transmission sector, Section 5 of the legislation would provide further guidance to FERC in establishing transmission rates in two ways. First, Section 5 would amend Section 205 of the Federal Power Act to clarify that the cost causer is responsible for paying the costs of new transmission investment and that all users of the transmission facilities are required to pay an equitable share of the costs such facilities. These provisions will help ensure that users of the transmission system have proper economic price signals and encourage investment where it is needed most. Second, Section 5 would add a new section to the Federal Power Act, Section 215, that would require the FERC to initiate a rulemaking to establish transmission pricing policies and standards to promote investment in transmission facilities. Although the Commission may have sufficient authority under current law to initiate such policies, our Nation's transmission system has been neglected too long and I believe that the FERC could benefit from more specific guidance from Congress. Finally, customers are not realizing all of the potential benefits of wholesale electricity markets because of its balkanization. The likely result is higher electricity prices. In different parts of the country, electric utilities are in various stages of joining together to form large regional markets, or in the terms used by FERC--regional transmission organizations. In addition, public power entities, including municipal utilities, cooperatives, and federal and State power marketing associations have been willing or resisting, to varying degrees, to contribute to the efforts to establish regional markets. Exacerbating this problem is the underlying fact that FERC does not have the same jurisdiction over public power utilities as it does over electric utilities. Properly functioning regional markets for electricity can bring about significant benefits to customers in all parts of the country. More competitive wholesale generation, for example, will allow retail sellers greater opportunities to purchase generation from independent power producers. Improperly functioning markets, or one-size-fits all proposals that do not take into consideration regional differences, can be devastating. Current law and policy at FERC has been insufficient in achieving the proper balance between the need for robust regional markets, the reality of regional differences and the legitimate efforts of utilities. Therefore, in Section 6 of the bill, the FERC would be required to convene regional discussions with State regulatory commissions to consider the development and progress of regional transmission organizations. It would further provide for specific topics of discussion between FERC and the States including the need for regional organizations, the planning process for facilities, the protection of retail customers, and the establishment of proper price signals to ensure the efficient expansion of the transmission grid. Section 6 would also help reduce the balkanization of the electric grid by authorizing the federal utilities such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Bonneville Power Administration to join regional transmission organizations. Also, in an attempt to help expand wholesale markets, Section 8 would provide for FERC to require that public power entities provide a limited form of access to their transmission facilities. This provision would give wholesale generators increased access to markets and ensure that competitors pay only the fair and reasonable price to use the transmission grid owned by public power. In conclusion, I ask my colleagues to support this legislation and consider its affect on retail electricity customers in their States. Affordable and reliable electricity should be our objective for all customers, in all parts of the country.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 89, I voted nay. It was my intention to vote yea. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote. It will not change the outcome of that vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kevin Avery be given floor privileges.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, less than 24 hours ago, President Bush, our Commander in Chief, issued orders to begin military actions to disarm Saddam Hussein and his totalitarian regime. War is never our first choice, but it is sometimes a necessary last choice. As a mature democracy, we prefer to settle disputes peacefully and use diplomacy whenever possible. But sometimes, disputes cannot be settled peacefully. Force must be used to defend against threats to our freedom and liberate an oppressed people. That is what we are doing in Iraq. I want to express my support for our men and women in uniform and this course of action. I wish to offer my wholehearted and unwavering support for those serving in our Armed Forces. The men and women serving our country in the military symbolize the best America has to offer. They are dedicated to the defense of our Constitution and willing to make the ultimate sacrifice, if necessary, to protect the Constitution for every American. More importantly, they volunteer to do so. They are well- trained and ready to defend our way of life and improve the lives of Iraqis. Along with the people of Louisiana, I will be praying for our troops and their families. I wish our men and women safety in their missions and a quick return home. Barksdale--B-52s and A-10s from the 2d Bomb Wing and 917th Air Wing are making great contributions in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guam. I am so proud of Barksdale's leadership, pilots, flight crews, and their families. Fort Polk is the premiere light armored training center in the world. Our Army will succeed in Iraq because it trained for victory at Fort Polk. Currently, 4,000 men and women of the 2d Armored Cavalry are working to liberate Iraq, and I could not be more proud. Their families should also be proud. Louisiana has 14,000 Air and Army National Guardsmen; 2,400 are currently deployed, and many are in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Guardsmen have been activated three times since September 11. In the last 18 months, they have seen little of their families, but they have done much for their country. These proud warriors have served above and beyond the call of duty. Belle Chasse is the premiere Joint Reserve Base for the Marine Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. Belle Chasse has contributed A-10s, Cobras, F-15s, and F-18s; pilots and crews to the war on terrorism. These men and women, too, have been called up a number of times. They have served valiantly and with distinction. In closing, I want to thank our allies who have joined us to defend our shores, bring liberty to the people of Iraq, and root out terrorism. British Prime Minister Tony Blair risked his political career to do what is right for world security. I want to tell him that the American people appreciate his courage. Australia is committing forces, and we are grateful. Additionally, Eastern European countries like Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland have been staunch supporters of disarming Saddam Hussein. They have done so because not long ago they lived under dictators. They have recently experienced the sweet breaths of freedom, and they want the Iraqi people to experience the same. God bless our troops. I yield the floor.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Concurrent Resolution to condemn executions by stoning. Death by stoning is an exceptionally cruel form of execution. It violates internationally accepted standards of human rights, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Convention Against Torture. Amnesty International has noted that stoning is ``a method specifically designed to increase the victim's suffering.'' Unfortunately, the laws of Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Nigeria, and several other countries permit this cruel and unusual punishment. It must be eliminated from every corner of the globe. As those who work on women's issues have learned all too well, women around the world are subjected disproportionately to cruel, discriminatory, and inhuman punishments. Frequently their governments cannot or will not provide equal protection of the law to all their citizens--especially women and girls. In several countries, women can be sentenced to execution by stoning for ``adultery,'' even in cases of coerced prostitution or rape. In some places, stoning has been invoked as punishment for ``blasphemy,'' suppressing religious freedom and stifling political dissent. The Concurrent Resolution which I have introduced would condemn execution by stoning, appeal for an end to the practice, and request the President to urge other nations' governments to terminate that cruel form of execution. If adopted by the Senate, this measure, together with Concurrent Resolution 26 just passed unanimously by the House, would put both houses of Congress on the record as firmly opposing stonings. I urge my colleagues to join the eight original co-sponsors and me in supporting this humanitarian measure.