Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask for 30 seconds to explain my vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, do I still have any time?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank the Senator from Montana. First, Mr. President, I understand there is an intent to try to table this amendment at this point. Obviously, I would object to that. And I believe there are others who want to speak. I would like to try to accommodate any real concerns the majority has. So at this point, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to withdraw the amendment until it can be perfected in a way the majority would support.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment deals with Indian Medicare Part B services. The Indian Health Service, of course, operates hospitals and clinics in various parts of the country, several in my State. Those hospitals and clinics provide health care to American Indians on or near reservations and to Alaska Natives. In many cases, those are hospitals and clinics that currently are unable to bill for all of the Medicare Part B services they are providing. In effect, the Indian Health Service under current law is subsidizing the Medicare Program because those services which would otherwise be paid for by Medicare, if it were a different provider other than the Indian Health Service--are having to be paid by the Indian Health Service itself. I think we in the Senate are all aware that the Indian Health Service, year after year, has been substantially underfunded. In 2000, Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics were made eligible for services of physicians and certain other practitioners, but there were real limits put on the services that were provided. Specifically, they were denied payment, the Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics were denied payment for the following important items that I will call to the attention of my colleagues so they may realize what the Indian Health Service is not permitted to be reimbursed for in the current law: Durable medical equipment. This includes such items as wheelchairs, as well as blood testing strips, blood monitors for diabetes patients--which is a severe problem among Native Americans throughout this country. The second item is home and some institution dialysis supplies and equipment. Since the prevalence of diabetes in the Native-American population and among Alaska Natives is three times the rate in the general U.S. population, Indian people experience a high rate of renal disease, including end-state renal disease. Clearly these are expenses, these are supplies, this is equipment that should be reimbursed. Third, cancer screening. Next, Pap smears, glaucoma screening, clinic and hospital-based ambulance services, prosthetic devices, covered vaccines, including hepatitis B, pneumococcal and influenza, chemotherapy and antigen drugs, and clinical laboratory services. The amendment I am offering would simply make these Indian health facilities and providers eligible for payment for all of the Part B Medicare-covered items, and individuals, to the same extent other providers are eligible for payment for those supplies and services. The amendment assures that Native Americans would have the same access to health services as any other American. If the Indian Health Service providers are unable to bill for those services, as they currently are, then the Indian Health Service budget shortfalls wind up resulting in the rationing or delaying of treatment to many of our Native-American citizens. For some of these individuals, it means going out of the Indian Health Service system in order to get more prompt service because other providers, in fact, do get reimbursed and can get reimbursed on Medicare for providing those services. Native Americans and Indian Health Service providers should not be subject to such barriers to care and to payment. Similarly, they should not be subject to such complexity as they are only prohibited from billing and receiving payment for certain services and not for others. It needs to be noted that the Medicare Advantage payments are based in part on fee-for-service expenditures in the defined region. For those areas with large numbers of Native Americans--such as my State-- payment rates are skewed downward if the Indian Health Service providers are unable to bill appropriately for the full range of services. We have lower reimbursement rates for Medicare in my State than many of the surrounding areas. One of the factors--not the only one, but one of the factors that is causing that is this problem I am trying to address with the amendment, the problem that the Indian Health Service is unable to be reimbursed. Accordingly, the amount Medicare is paying is skewed downward. Accordingly, that affects Medicare payments throughout the region. There is absolutely no policy rationale for limiting the payment to the Indian Health Service hospitals and clinics for only certain of the Medicare Part B services. I urge the Senate to end this unfortunate discrimination that has been built into the statutes under which we currently operate. I hope, again, this amendment will be favorably acted upon by the Senate when it comes to a vote. I believe it will substantially improve the legislation and will correct an inequity that is in current law that needs to be corrected. Amendment No. 933 Mr. President, let me at this point move to another amendment. We do not need to move off the current amendment, but I wish to discuss a different amendment that is pending that I am not calling up for a vote at this time but one I offered sometime earlier. The amendment I wish to speak about briefly now relates to the assets test. It is a proposal I have made to repeal the assets test. First, I compliment Chairman Grassley and the ranking member, Senator Baucus, for making significant progress and improvement with respect to the low-income benefit as compared to similar legislation that was considered last year. The bill, although improving the low-income benefit and reducing the impact of the assets test, still leaves in place an assets test of just $4,000 for an individual and $6,000 for a couple. This assets test has two very important consequences. By explaining these consequences, I think I will be able to explain what I mean by an ``assets test.'' First of all, for those who have incomes below the poverty level, if you own as much as $4,100 in a whole range of different assets combined--it can be savings accounts, bonds, savings bonds, burial plots, insurance policies, a car, the net worth of your car, livestock, whatever you happen to own--if the combined value of these categories adds up to $4,100, then your cost sharing under the bill increases and you do not get the full benefit of this low-income prescription drug benefit we are talking about as part of this legislation. Your cost sharing under the bill increases by 400 percent if you fail this assets test compared to similarly situated low-income people. If your income is between 100 and 135 percent of poverty, then the assets test increases cost sharing by 200 percent; that is, you have to pay twice as much if, in fact, your total assets add up to more than $4,100. The result is, Congress has effectively established a policy that encourages low-income seniors or people with disabilities to further impoverish themselves--that is, dispose of their property, sell their property off--in order to get the full benefit that is advertised. What kind of sense does this really make, to ask low-income and vulnerable seniors and people with disabilities to get rid of the very minimal savings they have in order to get the full low-income benefit? Let me talk about the other aspect of this that I think is particularly significant and needs to be discussed here. I think more and more, as people have been reading this legislation--this legislation goes on for more than 600 pages, so anyone who thinks we are doing something simple here by just giving people a prescription drug benefit has not spent the time to try to understand this legislation and read it. One of the aspects of the assets test that is most troublesome is the enormously cumbersome and bureaucratic procedure we put in place that affects so many of our low-income seniors who want to benefit from this prescription drug benefit we are adding. Also, there is a very substantial invasion of people's lives involved. Let me explain that in a little more detail. Any of you who do not think this is a complex, cumbersome, bureaucratic process we are setting up for low-income seniors, I urge you to just read the Pennsylvania 16-page application for low-income Medicare beneficiaries who want to qualify for assistance with premiums and copayments and deductibles that will also be the basis for qualifying for the low-income benefit in this bill. I question whether many of us in Congress would be able to fill out that application. What I have on this easel is not the Pennsylvania 16-page application. This is a much shorter, so-called streamlined 4-page application from the State of Ohio. To comply with the assets test requirement, as shown on this chart, in the State of Ohio they ask you to detail in this form all that you own in an enormous number of categories. Let me just go through this: your savings accounts, your checking accounts, anything you have with a credit union, any promissory notes, any stocks and bonds, any tax shelter accounts, any certificates of deposit, automobiles, 401(k)s, trust funds, Christmas clubs, vehicles of any kind other than an automobile--if you happen to have a pickup--money market funds, life insurance, land contracts, IRAs, Keogh plans, revocable burial accounts, irrevocable burial accounts, and other assets. So if you own a cow or you own a horse, whatever you own, they want to know about it. Then they add up the total value of those assets to see whether you have $4,100 there. If you do have $4,100 there, you have just failed the assets test. There are some 20 items here for low-income seniors or disabled Medicare beneficiaries to report just to apply for the prescription drug low-income benefit. It is a test, as I indicated, which many of us in Congress would have trouble passing without the assistance of a lawyer or an accountant. It is a major barrier, it is a burden we are imposing on these very individuals whom we say we are trying to help. I bring this to the attention of the Senate because I do not think many of us know the extent to which these applications are both difficult--difficult to complete--and also a terrible invasion of privacy. The Georgia application reads--and let me put that provision on the easel. We have a blowup of the application, which I am sure very few can read. But just to make the point, we have tried to blow it up so people can see it. I will read from the Georgia application. It says: I understand that, by signing this application, I am agreeing to a full investigation or review of my eligibility by state and/or federal officials. This may include inquiries of employers, medical providers, financial institutions, and other business and professional persons and review of any agency records. Oklahoma's application goes even further. It reads: I authorize the release of any necessary information, documents, or forms to the [Oklahoma department] from individuals, businesses, schools, banking institutions, data brokers, public or private organizations, Oklahoma state agencies, including personal and/or business income tax returns from the Oklahoma Tax Commission, or federal agencies to determine my eligibility for assistance or to determine the accuracy of any payments to vendors on my behalf. The Pennsylvania application--unfortunately, I do not have that blown up here; it would take more easels than we have available--requires the applicant to consent to: . . . fully cooperate in the finger, photo, and signature imaging process. It requires the reporting of any changes in the number of people in the household, any changes in the resources of the individual, and it adds--and this is a quotation from the report; this is the Pennsylvania report--``you must report any plans to leave the state, even temporarily.'' So if you want to come from Pennsylvania down to Washington, DC, to see your Senator, you have to notify the folks in Pennsylvania that you are leaving the State if you are, in fact, eligible for this benefit. The burden of the application ought to be something that would scare off a lot of individuals. Here is a line that is in the application of many States: State and Federal law provides for fine, for imprisonment, or both for any person who withholds or gives false information-- I note that it does not include anything about intentionally giving false information. in order to obtain assistance to which he or she is entitled. The application from Georgia reads: I understand the questions on this application-- which I would attest is virtually impossible for a lot of folks unless they do get professional help in understanding all of this-- and I certify under penalty of perjury that the information given by me on this form is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge. The result of this assets test, this barrage of paperwork presented to people when they come in and ask for the benefits, is what the Congressional Budget Office is telling us. Their estimate is that only 50 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the low- income benefit under this bill will actually get the benefit. I find it shocking, after reading these applications, that the number could even be that high. It is a testament to the Nation's seniors and disabled that so many people go through the bureaucratic maze to get the benefit we are talking about. On the implementation of the Children's Health Insurance Program--a different program but one that also had a similar assets test--a number of States initially imposed assets tests on the families before they allowed children to get health care coverage. Over time most of those States have repealed those tests. Our experience with the assets test in the case of the Children's Health Insurance Program should be instructive. The Denver Post wrote at the time: It seems the system is penalizing people for trying to build better lives. The message is that you must stay poor. If you have a decent running car that will get you to where you need to go, you will lose your health care coverage. The Rocky Mountain News added: Jumping through the hoops might be a whole lot easier for some families than filling out the required forms which rival the renowned handiwork of the Internal Revenue Service for clarity and ease of compliance. The logic of erecting such paperwork obstacles escapes us. Government doesn't have to offer insurance to the children of working poor but having made the decision to do so, it is hardly fair then to smother the program beneath layers of red tape. These last two quotes relate to the Children's Health Insurance Program, not to the Medicare prescription drug benefit. But the same problem pointed out when we had the assets test applied in the case of the Children's Health Insurance Program is true and exists with respect to this prescription drug coverage for our Nation's low-income elderly and disabled citizens. We are not only smothering them beneath layers of red tape, but the applications threaten their privacy and further threaten fines or imprisonment if those individuals who apply provide false information even if it is unintentional in some cases. I raise these points because very few, if any, Senators have taken the time to understand the application process, and they would be appalled if they really did take the time to understand the difficulties we are placing in the way of a senior getting access to this low-income benefit. I urge each of them to attempt to fill out their own State's application. Clearly that would be a good way to acquaint themselves with the difficulty of the problem we are putting in the way of people. Before closing, let me point out the assets test was established in 1988. It has never been updated for inflation. Nor does the bill update the assets test for inflation. Not only was the assets test established in 1988 at this level of $4,000 and $6,000 per couple, and it has never been updated for inflation, but it has built in it a marriage penalty. If you get married, a couple can only have a combined net worth of $6,000. If you remain single, you can have a net worth of $4,000. Everyone who gives speeches about the importance of eliminating the marriage penalty will want to support the amendment for that reason. The bill does update the amount of the deductible. The amount of the deductible increases. It does update the catastrophic limit by an inflation factor pegged to increases in drug spending which the Congressional Budget Office estimates will increase on average 12 percent a year over the next 10 years. But we do nothing to index or update the amount of this assets test. While I completely respect the position of the chairman that he would place a priority on using any additional funds to close the coverage gap in the bill--I certainly favor closing that coverage gap myself--we need to protect our Nation's most vulnerable, the poorest and the sickest among us first. If we provide a low-income benefit, as the bill does, it should be unacceptable to us to have only half of those who are eligible for that benefit actually access the benefit. This is similar to the Children's Health Insurance Program in that we are not required to provide this benefit, but now that we are choosing to do so and we are choosing to do so on a bipartisan basis, we need to be sure those who are intended to benefit from it can in fact do so. We are about to impose on these individuals an avalanche of bureaucratic red tape when they try to access the benefit. The underlying legislation has contained in it 69 pages of language that is designed to give health care providers a whole range of regulatory relief. Here we have some of that detail on this chart. The appeals process is being reformed--expedited review procedures, provider ombudsman, a variety of things to try to help providers. But we have nothing to give beneficiaries any relief from the burden I have described. One Senator said last week that the amendment I have offered to eliminate the assets test would cost money. It would increase State administrative costs. Frankly, that statement could not be more inaccurate. In fact, if we dramatically reduce the paperwork burden, the bureaucratic paperwork, States would not have to increase administrative costs. They would actually be able to reduce those costs. It is not the amendment that is increasing these costs. It is the underlying bill. It is not the amendment that is imposing the burden upon States. It is the underlying bill itself. All the amendment does is significantly reduce the amount of bureaucratic paperwork that must be dealt with in order for this benefit to be provided. Some States have actually found that it costs more to administer the assets test than they save by disqualifying people who fail the test. In addition, Senator Hatch's comments on the amendment were right in saying it would increase costs. But the estimate is that it would increase costs by $4 billion over the 10-year period for which the Congressional Budget Office calculates. This is well within the budget limitations Congress established for this drug benefit. There are $19.3 billion remaining in the budget for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. My amendment provides those are the years that this assets test would be eliminated. The amendment also does so by eliminating the false advertising we are engaged in as we tout a low-income benefit when, in fact, only 50 percent of eligible beneficiaries are going to receive it. In fact, CBO estimates that another 1 million low-income seniors who are eligible for this low-income benefit will in fact be able to access it if this amendment is adopted. If we eliminate the bureaucratic redtape, who are the 1 million people who would benefit from this assets test? The Commonwealth Fund has studied that. They have said in a recent report: Compared to other Medicare beneficiaries, low-income Medicare beneficiaries are older, they are more likely to be women, they are more likely to be single, and more than twice as likely to be widowed or divorced or separated. Low-income Medicare beneficiaries are almost twice as likely to report that their health is either fair or poor. I think it is these people who need to be our first priority. The amendment I have to eliminate the assets test will help us to provide a genuine benefit to these people. I hope my colleagues will support this effort. It will substantially improve the underlying bill and substantially simplify the providing of this benefit we are all hoping occurs. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask amendment No. 973 be called up for immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Conrad, Breaux, Snowe, Lincoln and Smith that will provide thousands of our Nations' automobile dealerships with needed additional flexibility to re-invest franchise termination payments so that taxes are not unfairly imposed. This legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and was included in the Chairman's modified mark in last year's small business tax bill. At the end of 2000, GM notified their 2,801 Oldsmobile dealers that they were phasing out the 100 year-old Oldsmobile brand and its complete line-up of vehicles shortly after the dealers had signed a new agreement with a commitment of up to five years on this product line. With this surprising elimination of the Oldsmobile product line, many family-owned dealerships are facing an increased threat to the viability of other product lines at their dealerships and, in some cases, a complete loss of their business. GM is in the process of compensating these dealers to minimize the impact, as many of these dealers are facing a significant and previously unforeseeable financial burden, through no fault of their own, in connection with their efforts to continue in the automobile retail business. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to lessen that burden by allowing these dealerships up to two years to re- invest their GM's financial assistance payments in other dealership properties and defer payment of taxes under IRC Section 1031. Under current law, the dealerships would only have 6 months to identify and purchase a similar business or property. This time restriction would make it difficult, if not impossible, for most of these businesses to re-invest these payments because, as is the case with most franchises, there are very few businesses or investments that are similar enough to be considered ``like kind'' and hence qualify for tax deferral. The failure to do so results in the owner paying taxes on the payment, even if they are ultimately re-invested in a business that would have qualified. Since the dealers did not want to forfeit their rights to sell Oldsmobiles, this seems like a particularly harsh result. In rural States like New Mexico, family-owned businesses supply the majority of jobs and services in the State. This legislation gives these small businesses an opportunity to continue their family-owned businesses and, at the same time, give a boost to the local economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Hatch, Baucus, Conrad, Breaux, Snowe, Lincoln and Smith that will provide thousands of our Nations' automobile dealerships with needed additional flexibility to re-invest franchise termination payments so that taxes are not unfairly imposed. This legislation has bipartisan support in both the House and the Senate and was included in the Chairman's modified mark in last year's small business tax bill. At the end of 2000, GM notified their 2,801 Oldsmobile dealers that they were phasing out the 100 year-old Oldsmobile brand and its complete line-up of vehicles shortly after the dealers had signed a new agreement with a commitment of up to five years on this product line. With this surprising elimination of the Oldsmobile product line, many family-owned dealerships are facing an increased threat to the viability of other product lines at their dealerships and, in some cases, a complete loss of their business. GM is in the process of compensating these dealers to minimize the impact, as many of these dealers are facing a significant and previously unforeseeable financial burden, through no fault of their own, in connection with their efforts to continue in the automobile retail business. The legislation we are introducing today seeks to lessen that burden by allowing these dealerships up to two years to re- invest their GM's financial assistance payments in other dealership properties and defer payment of taxes under IRC Section 1031. Under current law, the dealerships would only have 6 months to identify and purchase a similar business or property. This time restriction would make it difficult, if not impossible, for most of these businesses to re-invest these payments because, as is the case with most franchises, there are very few businesses or investments that are similar enough to be considered ``like kind'' and hence qualify for tax deferral. The failure to do so results in the owner paying taxes on the payment, even if they are ultimately re-invested in a business that would have qualified. Since the dealers did not want to forfeit their rights to sell Oldsmobiles, this seems like a particularly harsh result. In rural States like New Mexico, family-owned businesses supply the majority of jobs and services in the State. This legislation gives these small businesses an opportunity to continue their family-owned businesses and, at the same time, give a boost to the local economy. I look forward to working with my colleagues on advancing this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward, simple amendment that deals with a problem that is buried in this legislation and which really needs to be dealt with. That is the so-called assets test. My amendment would eliminate the assets test beginning in the year 2009. The first obvious question everyone should be asking is, What is the assets test? The assets test is as follows: The bill provides a more generous set of benefits for low-income individuals and low-income couples. That is as we intend. I think all Members of the Senate recognize that those who have the least in the way of income really need the most help in paying for their prescription drugs, particularly when you are dealing with seniors who are not, in most cases, out in the workplace able to increase their income. We believe the proper, the humane, and the compassionate thing is to provide this greater level of subsidy for low-income individuals. In particular, we look at those individuals with incomes up to 160 percent of poverty. That is the figure we have in this legislation. That translates into, I believe, what we are talking about. A couple with an income of perhaps $17,000 or $18,000 a year would qualify, and if they had any more income than that they would not qualify for this higher level of subsidy. The bill also provides that if a low-income individual has as much as $4,000 in assets, that individual is not entitled to that subsidy in the same way others would be. For example, if you have a 70 or 75-year-old widow who is receiving $5,000 a year in income or $6,000 a year or $8,000 in income and that widow also has $1,000 in U.S. savings bonds, and a car that has a blue book value of $3,100, then that widow is not entitled to the full benefit unless and until she goes out and either sells the savings bonds or sells the car or somehow or other impoverishes herself to be able to demonstrate she does not have assets worth $4,000.` This is a test that was put in the law many years ago. It is one that adds great complexity to the law. In fact, a major effect of this assets test is to discourage a great many low-income individuals from even applying for the increased benefit that is provided for in this legislation because the requirements for reporting, filling out forms, getting blue book values on your automobile--these are complicated requirements that discourage people from applying across the board. I also point out that under this assets test, not only is it $4,000 for an individual--so if you have $4,000 worth of income, of assets, as a widow, you fail the assets test--but if you are married, it is then $6,000. A lot of the Members of this Senate and the Congress have given speeches about what a terrible thing the marriage penalty is. Here is another marriage penalty that is in the law we are dealing with today. This is a penalty which says, if you get married, your ability to hold on to assets and still get this full benefit is reduced. You cannot hold on to as many assets. You can only hold on to $6,000 as a couple whereas you could hold on to $4,000 as an individual. In my view, the justification for this assets test has long since gone away. The reality is, if people are unable to work, as most seniors are, unable to increase their income, if they are low-income individuals, and if they have very substantial prescription drug costs, they need the assistance we are providing in this legislation--or trying to provide in this legislation--and we should not take that away from them by virtue of their having $4,000 worth of assets as an individual or $6,000 worth of assets as a couple. Let me elaborate on this a little bit more. There are about 40 million seniors and people with disabilities who depend on Medicare who could benefit from this prescription drug coverage we are talking about in this bill, and this assistance is particularly critical for those low-income individuals. Here we are talking about 14 million beneficiaries who have incomes less than 160 percent of poverty. Many of those individuals are in the State the Presiding Officer represents. Many of those individuals are in my State of New Mexico. The bill provides a significant benefit to those low-income seniors and individuals with disabilities, but it does so only if they do not fail the assets test. I do not know the exact figures, but the Congressional Budget Office estimate is that 21 percent of Medicare beneficiaries who would otherwise qualify for this low-income benefit in fact will be denied that full benefit because they fail the assets test. In fact, for those below 100 percent of poverty, if they fail the assets test, their cost sharing is increased, under this bill, by 400 percent. For those between 100 and 135 percent of poverty, the assets test causes their cost sharing to increase by 200 percent. I believe strongly that in the year 2009--which is what I have in my amendment--we should eliminate the assets test. I would propose we do it earlier, frankly, but I am informed that the Budget Committee has calculated the cost of the bill in such a way that there is no funding available for us to do anything such as eliminate the assets test before the year 2009. So I have crafted the amendment so that it would become effective in the year 2009. In addition to protecting low-income beneficiaries below 135 percent of poverty from much higher costs, much higher copays due to this assets test, it should also be noted that the assets test significantly increases the paperwork burden on seniors and on individuals with disabilities. While the underlying bill provides physicians and other health providers with regulatory relief--and that is one of the things we keep talking about when we try to describe the benefits in this bill--I fear the bill will significantly complicate the ability of Medicare beneficiaries to receive prescription drug coverage, particularly low- income individuals. They may need--I said this in the committee during our markup, and I believe it is not a totally facetious statement--they may need an accountant or a lawyer just to figure out the paperwork having to do with this assets test and how they can access these benefits. We should not be putting people to the choice of selling their car or liquidating their U.S. savings bonds in order to get the benefits of this bill. There are a great many low-income individuals who have very high prescription drug costs. That is a very unfortunate fact but one we are trying to come to grips with here. Under the bill, if they fail the assets test, their copay requirement is 10 percent up until they hit the so-called doughnut portion of the bill, which means essentially $4,000 of prescription drug expense in any given year; and then for the next $1,500 or $1,800 beyond that, they pay a 20-percent copay. If you have high prescription drug costs, a 20-percent copay is substantial. If you have high prescription drug costs, even a 10-percent copay can be substantial if your income is extremely low. And that is the group we are talking about here. So, Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It is done in a responsible way. It is not drafted in such a way that it would take effect immediately. It takes effect in the year 2009, when we are advised by the Budget Committee funds will be available to pay to eliminate this assets test. It clearly is the right thing to do. It is the humane thing to do if, in fact, we are serious about helping low-income seniors deal with this very substantial burden. We should adopt this amendment and eliminate the assets test as soon as we can afford to do so. And the Budget Committee tells me that is in fiscal year 2009. So I hope very much colleagues will support the amendment.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have no objection to the request of the Senator from Texas who asked if he could be allowed to speak for 15 or 20 minutes before we begin my amendment. If that is not a problem for the manager of the bill, I have no objection.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak briefly about the Bingaman-Inhofe amendment to preserve the Essential Air Service Program. Our amendment is cosponsored by Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, Harkin, Clinton, Schumer, Pryor, Ben Nelson, Lincoln, and Grassley. I thank them for their support. I first want to compliment Commerce Committee Chariman McCain, Aviation Subcomittee Chairman Lott, and Ranking Members Hollings and Rockefeller for their good work on this bill to reauthorize FAA. The bill the Senate is now considering, S. 824, will do much to assure the safety and security of the traveling public. I am also pleased S. 824 includes a number of provisions that will help improve commercial air service in rural areas, including a reauthorization of the Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program. However, we do take issue with one provision in this bill that would for the first time impose new costs on some communities that participate in the EAS program. As the bill now stands, some communities would be required to pay to continue to receive scheduled air service I believe this arbitrary proposal could eliminate scheduled air service from many rural communities. Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted to eliminate all mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope the Senate will do the same. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. A recent study from the Department of Agriculture, titled ``How Important is Airport Access for Rural Businesses'' underscores the importance of commercial air service to rural communities. In a survey of rural businesses, access to airport facilities and air service was frequently cited as one of the top problems for businesses in most rural counties. Air facilities, services, and fares were also found to be important to tourist-related and service businesses in rural areas. Not surprisingly, airport access was one of the least cited concerns of manufacturers in large- and medium-sized cities. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the current financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001. Congress already limits the eligibility of the EAS program to communities more than 70 miles from a major airport. In addition, the amount of the subsidy must be less than $200 per passenger for communities less than 210 miles from a major airport. These requirements serve to limit the cost to the government of the EAS program. In fact, in the past two years, about a dozen airports, including one in New Mexico, have been eliminated from EAS because the cost per passenger has exceeded the limit. We feel the additional requirements imposed in this bill are not appropriate and could force a number of communities to lose their commercial air service. In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the State's largest city and business center. I hope that all Senators recognize the vast distances between communities in my State. If you drive, Hobbs is 320 miles from Albuquerque, Carlsbad is 283 miles, Silver City 233, Clovis 216, and Alamogordo 210 miles. None of these cities are on interstate highways, so the driving times to Albuquerque can be 4, 5, and even 6 hours. Commercial air service is the only practical way to make the trip for business people or community leaders going to Albuquerque or to the nearby state capital in Santa Fe. Though so called ``hub'' airports may be located a hundred miles away in another state, it is just not practical to drive the long distance to another airport in order to fly to Albuquerque. However, that's exactly what is likely to happen if the Congress imposes new costs on our communities to maintain their commercial air service. As I understand it, under the proposal in this bill communities in 16 states could be affected by the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the Senate bill. These States are, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, and Vermont. The House-reported bill--H.R. 2115--also requires some rural communities to pay or lose their commercial air service. We believe this ill-conceived proposal could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues. The Governor of my state of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, said in a letter to me supporting this amendment: The cost sharing provision has the potential to affect the economic welfare of small communities in over 35 states---particularly those in New Mexico. I also have a letter of support from the New Mexico State Aviation Director, Mike Rice, who said this: This significant additional financial burden would have profound negative impacts on both current sir service and economic development efforts in several of our cities. Changes to current EAS funding could very well jeopardize existing air service in our state. Mayor Donald Carroll of Alamogordo, writes that it is improbable that funding will be available to locally subsidize air service. He also notes that the city is actively working with the commercial carrier, Rio Grande Air, to increase enplanements. The National Association of Development Organizations says: During these challenging economic times, Congress should be working to improve and enhance air service to rural and underserved communities, instead of adding new requirements that would further isolate hundreds of our nation's smaller communities. I'm not entirely sure that the proposal to charge the communities to continue their air service has been thoroughly thought out. The chairman's report on this bill from the Commerce Committee indicates that the Secretary will select 10 EAS communities to pay for their air service. However, the way I read the reported bill, only a one city in each of 8 states would be required to pay. Now, the chairman has offered an amendment that ups that total to 16 states with about 27 communities that could be impacted. At the same time, the bill isn't clear on what exactly is a ``hub'' airport. As I understand it, the FAA compiles one set of data on annual enplanements, but the Department of Transportation currently uses a different set of data from the department's Bureau of Transportation Statistics to determine eligibility for EAS. These data produce a different list of ``hub'' airports, which could change which airports would be required to pay, simply because of the source of the data the government chooses to use. Finally, new cities are coming into the EAS program, so that additional states could have cities that would be required to pay for their air service. Just one last point on the impacts of this proposal. I think we should make clear this isn't about saving the Government a lot of money. We estimate the payments from the communities would amount to less than $2 million a year out of a $113 million annual program. Advocates of this proposal may claim they've made it as easy as possible for the communities to provide the mandatory 10 percent match. I just don't believe these alternatives will be all that effective. I understand, none of the five EAS cities in New Mexico currently charge the commercial carrier any fees to land at the airport. In this way, our cities are already contributing to the cost of their commercial air service. I think we all appreciate the current concerns about the aviation industry and the EAS program. Ridership levels to rural cities are down. Meanwhile operating costs continue to increase, resulting in ticket prices that fewer people can afford. There are too many commuter aircraft flying at less than half capacity. Clearly, some improvements are needed. But what are some better options? Well, I think senators need only look in this same bill for the answer. In my view the bill already includes a number of excellent improvements in the EAS program that I believe will significantly enhance commercial air service in rural communities. For example, section 352 of the bill authorizes a new Marketing Incentive Program to increase ridership, reduce the Federal subsidies, and improve service. Section 353 provides for a number of pilot programs to help communities improve their commercial air service. One option is to allow communities to receive service with a smaller airplane. In my State, Alamogordo has decided to try service with a nine-passenger plane. In addition, communities may opt to convert their EAS service to alternative transportation, which might include bus or vans. I think these ideas represent a better approach to improving commercial air service in rural areas. I support these proposals and want to thank the chairman and ranking member for including them. The choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could well see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our amendment will help ensure affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. The House of Representatives has already voted to eliminate the mandatory cost sharing language from the FAA reauthorization bill. I hope all Senators will vote for this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that a listing of the communities that could be affected and a letter of support for the amendment by the Governor of New Mexico, a letter of support for the amendment from the Director of the New Mexico Aviation Division of the New Mexico Department of Transportation, a letter from the Mayor of Alamogordo, NM, and a letter from the National Association of Development Organizations, all in support of this amendment, be printed in the Record.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will use those 2 minutes. Mr. President, the underlying bill, which we are trying to amend here, has in it really clear language that essentially lets the Secretary of the Interior off the hook. It eliminates responsibilities that the Secretary of the Interior would otherwise have. It says the United States shall not be liable for any loss or injury sustained by any party, including an Indian tribe, or any member of an Indian tribe, to a lease, business agreement, right-of-way, executed in accordance with the tribal energy resource agreements approved under this subsection. Then it says that on approval of a tribal energy resource agreement of an Indian tribe, under paragraph 1, the Indian tribe shall be estopped from asserting a claim against the United States on the grounds that the Secretary should not have approved this agreement. That is a clear statement by the Congress--if that becomes law--that the Secretary of the Interior is off the hook. This may be on Indian trust land. It may be that the Secretary of the Interior is the trustee of that Indian trust land. We are saying in this language--if we don't amend it by the amendment Senator Inouye and I have prepared, we are saying that the Secretary of the Interior is off the hook and the Indian tribe has no one to go to for any kind of remedy. I don't think we intend to do that. Senator Inouye and I have put together an amendment we believe keeps trust responsibility with the Federal Government, where it should be. It sets up a good procedure that the tribe can work with the Federal Government. The tribe still has decisions, makes decisions over these energy development projects, but clearly the Federal Government needs to be part of that and needs to have responsibility for seeing that decisions are in the best interest of the tribe. Mr. President, I think this is a good amendment. I hope that once we do get to a vote, whenever that occurs, we will see this amendment adopted. It will strengthen the bill, and I hope very much we can approve it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. How much time would remain on our side if we had entered into that agreement?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I request that we do our vote so he can be here later on. Is that acceptable?

Mr. BINGAMAN. We were anxious to get a vote. Senator Schumer wanted to be here for a vote. He had to leave. He indicates he will have to leave.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thought the agreement was that we would have a vote on ours.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is my understanding. I was hoping we would have a vote right away. How much time remains on each side?