Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Jeffords, Murray, Leahy, and Cantwell entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003.'' This bill addresses an inequity that was created during the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill. While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and ``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new CHIP funding for the children of their respective States, the legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico, Vermont, and Washington, among others. This had the effect of penalizing a certain group of States for having done the right thing. The ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2003'' addresses this inequity by allowing those States, which had expanded coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty by April 15, 1997, before the enactment of CHIP, to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of those children covered by Medicaid above 133 percent of poverty-- putting them on a more level field with all other States in the country. As you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and provide $48 billion over ten years as an incentive to States to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent of poverty or beyond. During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain States were already undertaking Medicaid or separate State-run expansions of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania to convert their separate State-run programs into CHIP expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding for their expansions. Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for their expansions. This created an inequity among the States where some were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP and others were denied. Therefore, our bill addresses this inequity. New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 percent of poverty--above the level of the vast majority of states across the country. Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its federal CHIP allocations. New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP as other comparable states were. The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 114,000 uninsured children. In other words, almost 21 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the second highest rate of uninsured children in the country. This is a result of the fact that an estimated 80 percent of the uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are, consequently, often eligible for Medicaid but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need. Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many States are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those States are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico. As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.'' Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, including Washington and Vermont. Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they must receive the health coverage for which they are eligible. The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children--just as other states across the country are doing. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when future generations reflect on the fallout from the terrorist attack of 9/11/2001, I fear they will see our own commitment to international law as a casualty of that event. I do. For some time now, there has been a contest within the U.S. foreign policy establishment between those who believe our greater security lies with the strengthening of international institutions and agreements, on the one hand, and, on the other, those who believe our security is enhanced if we demonstrate the will and capacity to prevail; that is, to dominate the new world and shape it to our liking. The election of President Bush and the attack of 9/11 have moved U.S. policy to endorse this second vision--that of U.S. dominance of a world that meets our standards of acceptable conduct. The result of this shift in U.S. foreign policy is now evident in the statements and actions of the President regarding Iraq. Unless I misread those statements by the President and his foreign policy team, sometime within the next few days, the United States, and possibly British, troops will begin an invasion of Iraq. The mission, according to the President, will be to disarm Saddam Hussein, to capture and destroy his weapons of mass destruction, to liberate the people of Iraq from his despotic rule, to install a new and democratic government, and to hold up Iraq as a model for freedom and democracy that can be emulated by other Middle Eastern countries. These are noble objectives. My concern is not with the objectives but with the apparent decision the President has made to proceed with an invasion now while many Americans and many of our traditional allies believe that alternatives to war still exist. In his State of the Union Address, the President spoke about a circumstance where ``war is forced upon us.'' After the President spoke, I came to the Senate floor to make what I considered an obvious point; that is, that war had not been forced upon us. It is still my view today that war with Iraq has not been forced upon us. Our allies who are urging that the U.N. weapons inspectors be given more time to do their work agree with that view. In the report to the Security Council last Friday, Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradai, the heads of the U.N. inspection teams, reported progress toward the goal of ensuring that Iraq has been disarmed. They pointed out that more cooperation by Iraq is needed, but they acknowledged that cooperation has increased. President Bush and Secretary of State Powell have correctly pointed out that Iraq's increased level of cooperation does not constitute full compliance with Security Council Resolution 1441, in that Iraq has not fully, completely, and immediately disarmed. The question is whether this failure to fully comply with the U.N. resolution justifies an armed invasion of Iraq at this time. Many Security Council members believe it does not, and, in my view, it does not. Our Government's position appears to be that we will enforce the U.N. Security Council resolution even though the Security Council itself does not support that action at this time. In other words, we will act in coordination with the views of the world community of nations as long as those views agree with our own. When those views differ from our own, we will use our great military capability to impose our will by force. I, for one, can support a policy of imposing our will by force, notwithstanding the views of our allies, if there is an imminent threat to our own security and if all options, other than war, have been exhausted. But neither of those circumstances prevails today. A decision to wage war at this time, absent the support of our traditional allies, contradicts the foreign policy on which this Nation has been grounded for many decades. It undermines the international institution that previous U.S. administrations worked to establish as an instrument for world peace. It clearly signals that even absent an imminent threat to our security, we consider ourselves the ultimate arbiter of acceptable behavior by other governments and that we will act to ``change regimes'' when we determine the actions of other governments to be unacceptable. Madam President, this is an unwise and dangerous precedent for us to establish. Stripped of its niceties, it is essentially a foreign policy premised on the belief that ``might makes right.'' At this point in world history, we have the might and, therefore, accommodating the views of others seems a low priority. But the day will surely come when others also have the might, and then we may wish we had shown restraint so that we can argue that others should as well. There is a famous scene from ``A Man For All Seasons,'' the magnificent play Robert Bolt wrote, about the conflict between Sir Thomas More, a man of conscience and the law, and his sovereign, Henry VIII. More and Roper, his son-in-law, are arguing about the law at this point in the play. Their conversation is instructive. Roper, the son- in-law, exclaims: ``So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!'' More replies: ``Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?'' Roper says: ``I'd cut down every law in England to do that,'' to which More responds: ``. . . And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you--where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast . . . and if you cut them down--and you're just the man to do it--d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then?'' ``Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.'' I submit that if the United States determines to circumvent the U.N. in this case, the Devil may well turn round on us, and we could reap the whirlwind for years to come. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as a sponsor of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today. The tax incentives we introduce today are designed to encourage commercial activities that will increase and diversify our energy supplies and help us to use those energy supplies more efficiently and productively. Our demand for energy continues to grow and we will need a broad portfolio of energy sources, including improved efficiency, to meet this demand. The energy tax package encompasses many of the diverse components that make up a comprehensive energy strategy. These include incentives for renewable resources, alternative transportation fuels and alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and buildings, clean coal, domestic oil and gas production and infrastructure, as well as removing impediments to an integrated electric grid. This bill reflects the work of the Finance Committee last year to develop a balanced package of energy tax provisions to complement the energy policy legislation developed by the Senate. The language of the bill is virtually identical to the tax sections of the Energy bill passed by the Senate last April. While new or improved versions of some of the provisions have been developed in the intervening months, this version provides a common starting point for any further refinements of the text. I look forward to participating in the Finance Committee's consideration of the energy tax package this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee and the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee as a sponsor of the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2003, which we are introducing today. The tax incentives we introduce today are designed to encourage commercial activities that will increase and diversify our energy supplies and help us to use those energy supplies more efficiently and productively. Our demand for energy continues to grow and we will need a broad portfolio of energy sources, including improved efficiency, to meet this demand. The energy tax package encompasses many of the diverse components that make up a comprehensive energy strategy. These include incentives for renewable resources, alternative transportation fuels and alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and buildings, clean coal, domestic oil and gas production and infrastructure, as well as removing impediments to an integrated electric grid. This bill reflects the work of the Finance Committee last year to develop a balanced package of energy tax provisions to complement the energy policy legislation developed by the Senate. The language of the bill is virtually identical to the tax sections of the Energy bill passed by the Senate last April. While new or improved versions of some of the provisions have been developed in the intervening months, this version provides a common starting point for any further refinements of the text. I look forward to participating in the Finance Committee's consideration of the energy tax package this year.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments to discuss the recent cloture vote in relation to the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The Constitution provides that the President shall nominate candidates for the Federal bench and the Senate shall give advice and consent regarding those candidates. We cannot yet proceed to a vote on this nominee because we take this constitutional obligation--not right, but obligation--seriously. An up-or-down vote on this nominee is premature, because we have yet to get disclosure of critical information regarding this nominee. I believe that it is our obligation to ensure that--to the best of our knowledge--each judicial nominee is capable of setting aside extreme views that he or she may hold when interpreting the law and deciding cases. We must do our best to ensure that the person will be a fair and impartial judge. Miguel Estrada may very well be able to do that. But before we can make that determination, we have a right to full disclosure of information that will assist us in ascertaining that this is the case. We have a right to expect the nomineee to be forthcoming in answering our questions, and we have a right to expect the administration to be cooperative in providing any information that is relevant to making our decision. The advice and consent process is not a rubber stamp but a meaningful process. Mr. Estrada is not a sitting judge and has not published any legal articles. Written judicial decisions and published legal writings often provide us with the evidence that we need to determine whether a nominee will objectively enforce the laws and the Constitution. We have neither here to guide us. Added to this, we have a situation where a person in the Solicitor General's Office who had direct supervisory authority over the nominee when he worked there, Mr. Paul Bender, has stated that he does not believe Mr. Estrada can be trusted to decide cases without being clouded by his extreme views. He said that Mr. Estrada was so ``ideologically driven that he couldn't be trusted to state the law in a fair, neutral way . . . Miguel is smart and charming, but he is a right-wing ideologue.'' Now this is just one man's opinion and certainly should not be dispositive, but it certainly gives us cause for concern and an even stronger desire to have access to all available information regarding Mr. Estrada's judgment and skills. We could judge for ourselves whether there is any basis for Mr. Bender's assessment of Mr. Estrada by reviewing the work that he did while working at the Solicitor General's Office. If we had the ability to do so, we could judge for ourselves whether the nominee objectively presented the facts and the law while working in that capacity, which would be a good indication of his ability to do so as a judge. To this end, my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee sought access to the memoranda written by Mr. Estrada to his superiors at the Solicitor General's Office on questions such as whether the United States government should appeal an adverse ruling to the Supreme Court or whether it should file an amicus brief in a case that the Supreme Court has decided to hear. The administration has categorically refused to provide these documents, despite the fact that it is accepted practices to make these types of documents available to the Senate in the context of a nomination inquiry. Initially, the administration refused to provide any of these work samples, incorrectly stating that it was the practice of the executive branch to do so. When my colleagues were able to point out that in every prior case where similar work samples were requested they were provided, the administration claimed that were not officially provided but ``leaked'' to Congress. When my colleagues were able to demonstrate that in every prior case where similar documents were requested, the Department of Justice officially released them to Congress after an exhaustive search, the administration claimed similar documents were released previously only in order to clear up an allegation of wrongdoing, but again my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee demonstrated that this simply was not true. Prior precedent clearly demonstrates a policy of cooperation with respect to previous requests. The administration continues to refuse to provide any of the work products from the Solicitor General's Office despite the fact that there is no legal basis for their refusal and despite the fact that similar information was disclosed in every other instance that it was requested. We cannot help but be left with the feeling that there is something to hide in this case. We also might be able to make a judgment regarding the nominees's ability to be a fair judge through questioning the nominee regarding his judicial philosophy and regarding his analysis of previously decided cases. These questions are commonly asked of judicial nominees in order to examine whether the nominee's views are outside the mainstream and whether he can set his or her personal views aside in analyzing cases. When my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee pursued this practice, Mr. Estrada refused to provide meaningful answers to their questions. I have carefully reviewed the transcript from that hearing and am quite frankly amazed at Mr. Estrada's refusal to answer questions that many prior judicial nominees--both those nominated by Democratic and Republican Presidents--have answered as a matter of course. As I have mentioned before, this refusal is particularly perplexing, given that this same individual admitted that he asked similar questions of candidates for a clerkship with Justice Kennedy in order to ``ascertain whether there are any strongly felt views that would keep that person from being a good law clerk to the Justice.'' This is exactly what my colleagues on the Judiciary Committee sought to do with respect to Mr. Estrada. If this type of information is relevant to the process of hiring a Supreme Court law clerk, isn't it infinitely more important to the process of appointing an appellate judge--someone who has a lifetime appointment to the bench? It may be the case, that if this information were to be made available, I would support Mr. Estrada. I have voted in favor of 100 of the 103 nominees that President Bush has sent forward to the Senate since he took office. In many of these cases, I did not agree with the nominee's views on many issues. Nevertheless, I had enough information to determine that they were not out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. I believe we have the right to have access to the information that we need to make that judgment on this nominee. It is unfortunate that before I finish that I feel I must respond to the allegations of some that the debate surrounding this particular nominee relates to his ethnicity. This is a preposterous notion. It is a smoke and mirrors argument designed to cloud the legitimate debate about the nominee's qualifications for the bench. To infer--or to outright state as has been the case--that my colleagues would be motivated by the fact that Mr. Estrada is Hispanic is outrageous. One need only look to recent history to see just how wrongheaded that notion is. During the last Democratic administration, over 30 Hispanics were nominated for judgeships. I supported all of them. Unfortunately, approximately one-third of them were not confirmed--and some didn't even get the courtesy of a hearing--due to opposition from some of my Republican colleagues. It was, in fact, during the last Democratic administration that the first Latina to serve at the district court level was confirmed. She continues to serve in my State. By contrast, this administration has nominated a total of eight Hispanics. Six of them have already been confirmed and are now serving on the bench and the other nominee is expected to move ahead as soon as the necessary paperwork is in order. That leaves only Mr. Estrada, and I have stated the reasons I feel it is inappropriate to go forward with his nomination. The debate in this case is about preserving the Senate's constitutional role in judicial nominations. It transcends this particular nomination because if we were to proceed to a vote after this nominee has refused to answer routine questions about his views and his judicial philosophy, and after the administration has refused to respond to a routine request for samples of this nominee's work product, we would essentially be conceding that the Senate's role in judicial nominations is that of providing a rubber stamp to the President's nominations. This is clearly not the role envisioned by the Framers of our Constitution.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo Nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day schoolbuses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school. About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation. The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land. In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel, and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four preschools. The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, as well, Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation. Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy, or snowy. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. These children are literally being left behind. Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation. In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to a reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as schoolbus routes. This program has been very successful. For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school-buses to carry children to school and to Head Start programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a schoolbus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program. The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively. I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join me in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education. My bill has the support of the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments and the Tri-State County Association of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Indian School Bus Route Safety Reauthorization Act of 2003. This bill continues an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation, I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level. I would like to begin with some statistics on this unique problem and why I believe a Federal solution continues to be necessary. The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. To give you an idea of its size, the State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation. According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo Nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day schoolbuses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school. About 6,400 miles of the roads on the Navajo reservation are BIA roads, and about 2,500 miles are State and county roads. All public roads within, adjacent to, or leading to the reservation, including BIA, State, and county roads are considered part of the Federal Indian reservation road system. However, only BIA roads are eligible for Federal maintenance funding from BIA. Moreover, construction funding and improvement funding from the Federal Lands Highways Program in TEA- 21 is generally applied only to BIA or tribal roads. Thus, the States and counties are responsible for maintenance and improvement of their 2,500 miles of roads that serve the reservation. The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation are simply not in a position to maintain all of the roads on the reservation that carry children to and from school. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. For example, in my State of New Mexico, three-quarters of McKinley County is either tribal or Federal land, including BLM, Forest Service, and military land. The Indian land area alone comprises 61 percent of McKinley County. Consequently, the county can draw upon only a very limited tax base as a source of revenue for maintenance purposes. Of the nearly 600 miles of county-maintained roads in McKinley County, 512 miles serve Indian land. In San Juan County, UT, the Navajo Nation comprises 40 percent of the land area. The county maintains 611 miles of roads on the Navajo Nation. Of these, 357 miles are dirt, 164 miles are gravel, and only 90 miles are paved. On the reservation, the county has three high schools, two elementary schools, two BIA boarding schools and four preschools. The situation is similar in neighboring San Juan County, NM, as well, Apache, Navajo, and Coconino Counties, AZ. In light of the counties' limited resources, I do believe the Federal Government is asking the States and counties to bear too large a burden for road maintenance in this unique situation. Families living in and around the reservation are no different from families anywhere else; their children are entitled to the same opportunity to get to school safely and to get a good education. However, the many miles of unpaved and deficient roads on the reservation are frequently impassable, especially when they are wet, muddy, or snowy. If the schoolbuses don't get through, the kids simply cannot get to school. These children are literally being left behind. Because of the vast size of the Navajo reservation, the cost of maintaining the county roads used by the school buses is more than the counties can bear without Federal assistance. I believe it is essential that the Federal Government help these counties deal with this one-of- a-kind situation. In response to this unique situation, in 1998 Congress began providing direct annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. The funding was included at my request in section 1214(d) of TEA-21. Under this provision, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three States. The funding is provided directly to the counties in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah that contain the Navajo reservation. I want to be very clear: these Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to a reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as schoolbus routes. This program has been very successful. For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school-buses to carry children to school and to Head Start programs. I had an opportunity in 1998 to see first hand the importance of this funding when I rode in a schoolbus over some of the roads that are maintained using funds from this program. The bill I am introducing today provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States. I believe that continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest--and the unique nature of this need that only the Federal Government can deal with effectively. I don't believe any child wanting to get to and from school safely should have to risk or tolerate unsafe roads. Kids today, particularly in rural and remote areas, face enough barriers to getting a good education. I ask all Senators to join me in assuring that Navajo schoolchildren at least have a chance to get to school safely and get an education. My bill has the support of the Southeastern Utah Association of Local Governments and the Tri-State County Association of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. I ask unanimous consent that letters and resolutions from New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I am pleased that Congressmen Tom Udall of New Mexcio, Rick Renzi of Arizona, and James David Matheson of Utah are introducing a companion bill today in the House. I look forward to working with them this year and with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this legislation once again into the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization of the surface transportation bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak for a few minutes about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the lack of action by the administration to deal with the problems we see in our oil markets today. What we are seeing by the administration is not bad policy, as such. What it is is a lack of policy for how we will use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a critical time such as the one we are in today. This indecision, this failure to articulate a policy, is hurting consumers and it is hurting our economy. We have an oil supply crisis on our hands right now. Oil prices hit $40 a barrel last week. Domestic crude and product stocks are at an all-time low and oil prices are now hovering at levels that we have not seen since the gulf war. High energy prices such as this do hurt consumers and the economy. The question is, What has the administration done to minimize this economic pain that Americans are feeling? The average consumer may not know what the price of oil is on a daily basis, but the average consumer does know the price of gasoline at the pump, and American consumers have had to bear the brunt of several weeks of very high gasoline prices while Saudi Arabia has been ramping up their production to maintain, if not to increase, their market share. I do not know the connection between our national policy and Saudi Arabia's maintenance of market share. That has not been explained to me. But last fall, after the elections, when crude supply was first impacted and prices began to rise, the administration was urged to act to do a test sale of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil by several oil analysts. A Strategic Petroleum Reserve release on this small scale would have been appropriate then. It would have been a simple statement outlining the administration's SPR policy, and it would have helped to calm jittery markets, which is certainly what we have seen in recent days and weeks. The situation we now face, in which the curtailment of oil supplies is hurting our national economic security, is precisely what we foresaw when Congress created the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The curtailment has been months in the making. The current crisis in Venezuela has pushed the supply situation to a level that is beyond ``severe''. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve was established in 1975, in direct response to the Arab oil embargo. Today, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve contains a total of 599.3 million barrels, almost 60 days' worth of imports. When this body considered the Omnibus Appropriations Act for 2003, I offered an amendment to extend our authority to use the SPR. That authority was set to expire later this year. I am pleased that the Senate adopted that provision and that as a result we have another 5 years of authority during which we can use SPR as a response to oil supply crises. However, the authority was enacted for a reason. There is a supply problem. We have known this for some time now. In December, 3 million barrels of Venezuelan crude came off the market altogether. This has had a larger supply impact than removing all Iraqi crude will have under a war scenario, which we all, I believe, consider to be very likely. Prior to December 2002, Venezuela was one of the world's five largest oil exporters. Its net exports averaged 2.4 million barrels per day. During the first 9 months of 2002, oil from Venezuela supplied approximately 14 percent of U.S. net oil imports, or about 1.5 million barrels per day. The United States depends on Venezuela for substantial volumes of gasoline imports as well as oil imports. A 10-week general strike in Venezuela has resulted in a sharp decrease in Venezuela's exports to the United States. The strike comes at a time when markets are already tight. On Tuesday, in the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, we heard testimony from the Secretary of Energy that everything was getting better in Venezuela, that the crisis was passing. Recent events, though, suggest that this may not be the case. A key factor in the uncertainty that is keeping prices up is the uncertainty surrounding the administration's intentions about using the SPR. A clear statement from the administration of the conditions under which oil would be released from the SPR would have an immediate effect on lowering oil prices. A cryptic phrase that is used by the administration is that they would release oil from the SPR only in the case of ``a severe supply disruption.'' But since the administration will not elaborate on what a severe supply disruption entails, the suspicion is that they will never release oil from SPR absent an all out war in the Persian Gulf that involves major damage to Saudi oilfields. For that reason, the psychology of the market largely discounts the existence of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve at this time, and consumers are paying all- time high prices at the pump. Gas prices have risen more than 30 cents a gallon since December. Gas prices are high in part because our crude stocks are down. We are operating at minimum operating levels in the refining sector. With high crude prices, increased refining output means even higher prices at the pump. Demand for gasoline is high as we head into the driving season. Since most spare capacity in the market is in the Middle East, it is going to take awhile to get the oil we need. It does not take much to send prices spiking again. Cold weather can do it. Disruption in supply from Venezuela or Nigeria could do it. War in the gulf could do it. My colleagues have listened to many speeches over the last year bemoaning the fact we do not have an energy policy. I am not going to ask that we come to closure today on a universal, all-encompassing, comprehensive energy policy. I would settle for a single action by the administration. That would be a clearly enunciated and understandable policy for when we will use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The administration may be sufficiently captive to a minimalist ideology in dealing with this oil crisis, that they never actually plan to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and I hope very much that is not the case. I call on the President to give us a clear and understandable signal as to what his policy is. Merely saying we will wait for a severe supply disruption is not an adequate response. Consumers deserve more. The costs to our economy may become unacceptable. It certainly is a severe issue weighing down our economy at the present time. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to address two or three issues this afternoon. I very much appreciate the chance to do so. First, let me begin with a subject that is extremely important to my State and to many of our States. That is Medicaid. I want to address two different proposals there. First, there is a proposal the administration has made related to Medicaid. We don't have a written proposal as yet, but we do have various statements from Secretary Thompson. We had a hearing this morning in the Finance Committee that the Presiding Officer attended, as did I. We have had testimony and oral statements and very brief descriptions, but we do not have a written proposal or even a detailed outline of what might be proposed by the administration. But in what they are proposing, I find some real serious concerns. The other proposal I want to discuss is one I am working on with Congressman Dingell--we hope to introduce it probably early next week-- entitled ``Saving Our States.'' I will try to describe a little bit each of these. The Nation's Governors have been here this week. I had the good fortune to speak to them last Sunday at one of their subcommittee meetings on human resources about Medicaid. It is clear that they are under severe stress at this point fiscally. It is estimated the States are facing nearly a $30 billion shortfall this year and an $80 billion shortfall in fiscal year 2004. In my view, it is important that the Federal Government respond to that. We cannot just ignore the fact that a growing number of our citizens are uninsured and that more and more people are being dropped from the Medicaid Program and the SCHIP program. The Federal Government needs to fundamentally reassess its own role in providing health care and reassess its relationship to the States in this regard. As I indicated, I am working with Congressman Dingell to prepare legislation to do just that. Let me talk first about the administration's proposal in very broad terms, as I understand it. It contains two parts. One is a set of reforms where, as the Secretary very eloquently described, it would allow States to adopt the best practices. It would allow States to put more emphasis on preventive care for seniors. It would allow States to have the flexibility they need to meet their particular needs. All of that is, of course, very good public policy, at least as stated in its most general form. As a general matter, I certainly believe the President and the Secretary will find strong support in Congress for that effort. But the second part of their proposal is the one that gives me concern. That is the restructuring of the financing. This part is much more difficult. What this does is basically say that for optional groups and for optional services--and that is an interesting definition as to what is optional; you will find that most of the services and groups currently covered by Medicaid turn out to be optional, and most of the funding that is currently spent on Medicaid turns out to be funding for optional groups and optional services--States would have the ability to get extra money for the first 7 years if they agreed that they would essentially live by a capped amount of Federal funding from now on. It would be about what they were getting in the year 2000 plus a 9-percent increase per year. That is the basic proposal. In addition to that, they are saying not only are we going to give the States a little extra money, we will reduce the amount of growth in that portion that the State in fact provides. So this is going to save money for the Federal Government. It will save money for the States. The one thing that is not discussed and that I have great concern about is the effect on the people who are supposed to be getting the health care services under this program; that is, the low-income children and the seniors. When you look at these definitions, optional groups, which seniors would you think might be in an optional group? Well, under the definition I have been given, if your income is over 74 percent of the Federal poverty rate, you are in an optional group. That means if your income gets anywhere up over about $7,500 or $8,000 per year, somewhere in that range--and I can get the exact figure--you are in an optional group. That means the total resources going to assist in your health care are being capped and are not going to grow as the population needing those services grows, are not going to grow as the usage of those services grows, are not going to grow as the health care cost of those services grows. We all know that there is growth in all three of those areas. That concerns me greatly. The other part of this which I can understand and makes it somewhat attractive to Governors, some of the Governors who were here this week, is that the Federal proposal says, if you agree to this, not only do you get a little extra Federal money but the amount of State money that you are going to have to put in is also going to be capped. The growth in that is also going to be capped. In other words, we will be able to save you money in your State budget. This is great for the States; it is great for the Federal Government. The problem is that the health care services available to low-income children and to seniors in our society are going to be reduced and reduced very substantially over the next 10 years under this proposal. So that has been my concern. Allow me to cite a couple of quotations from people who have spent a lot of time studying this. The AARP executive director and CEO, Bill Novelli, has said, in relation to the administration's proposal: This proposal handcuffs states because it leaves people more vulnerable in future years as states struggle to meet increased needs with decreased dollars. Another quote, from the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: The Bush Administration proposal fails people with disabilities and dishonors the nation's commitment to its residents--it is not in the national interest. . . .What the Medicaid program calls ``optional'' services are, in reality, mandatory disability services for the children and adults who need them. These services often are not only life-saving, but also the key to a positive quality of life--something everyone in our nation deserves. I believe strongly that the Federal Government at this particular time in our Nation's history should not be stepping away from its commitment to seniors, to people with disabilities, and to low-income children. It should not be leaving the States with the primary responsibility for dealing with growth in the cost of the services to these groups in the future. The administration will point out that the proposal does provide more funding up front to the States. The proposal is to give $12.7 billion more over the first 7 years to help the States. But there is something of an element of bait and switch in that after the first 7 years, that additional funding goes away. Secretary Thompson noted in his press conference that is after he has left his position, and I am sure it is after most of the Governors will have left their positions and probably after many of us will have left the Senate. That does not give us an adequate justification for putting in place a system that cuts funding for these vitally needed services in future years. The administration points out that they are promising the block grant for optional populations in a way that will increase at the same percentages that are projected in its budget. This is difficult to respond to, frankly, until we see a written proposal. We need a written proposal from the administration. We do not have that as yet. We do not have that on the Medicaid subject. We do not have that on Medicare either. And I hope those will be forthcoming soon because they are extremely vital programs for all of our States. Let me also talk a little about the proposal that I have, along with Congressman Dingell, that we are going to introduce next week. And I will go into more detail about it next week. Our idea is that there are certain groups that receive health care services under Medicaid, where the Federal Government needs to step up and pay the full cost of those services--or something very close to the full cost. One such group is so-called dual eligibles. These are people who are eligible for Medicare benefits, but are also low income enough that they are eligible for Medicaid at the same time. Current law says for those who are covered under the Medicaid law the States pay the lion's share of that cost. We are saying the States should not have to pay the lion's share of that cost. This is something where these folks have become eligible for Medicare. We should be paying 100 percent of that cost at the Federal level. Another group the Federal Government should be underwriting the cost of providing services for are illegal immigrants who come to our health care providers needing emergency attention. Here you can get into quite a philosophical argument as to whether or not these services should be provided. The reality is, if you are a doctor, if you are working in an emergency room and someone shows up who needs emergency care, you are obligated under your Hippocratic oath and the laws of decency, basically, to provide that care, if you are able to do so. To turn a person away because they do not have the right health insurance coverage, or they cannot demonstrate to you their financial solvency, when their circumstance is critical, is just not the way we should do business. The question is, Once that person has come into that emergency room and asked for that emergency care, who should reimburse the hospital for it? Who should pay the cost of that physician? At the current time, the States are picking that up, or the counties are picking that up, or the health care providers themselves are doing this on a pro bono basis. The reality is the Federal Government should be responsible for that, and we are proposing that in our legislation. Another group, of course, is Native American citizens. We have a great many Native Americans in my home State. The Federal Government should be stepping up to its responsibility to ensure that health care for these individuals is provided. We propose that as part of our proposal for saving our States as well. I will have another chance to talk this ``saving our States'' proposal when we introduce it early next week. I very much wanted to make reference to it today and indicate my great concern about the proposal I understand the administration is about to present to us. The truth is, the cost of providing health care is very high, and it is not getting any cheaper. We need to budget that in and we need to acknowledge that and we need to recognize that as a matter of public policy in this country, we should provide that basic care to seniors, to low-income children, to those who are disabled. The Medicaid Program does that. We need to keep the Medicaid Program sound and not undermine it by rationing back on the dollars we are willing to spend on those basic services.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that will help raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of Americans who live near the U.S.-Mexico Border. The ``Southwest Regional Border Authority Act'' would create an economic development authority for the Southwest border region, charged with awarding grants to border communities in support of their local economic development projects. The need for a Regional Border Authority is acute: the poverty rate in the Southwest border region is 20 percent--nearly double the national average; unemployment rates in Southwest border counties often reach as high as five times the national unemployment rate; per capita personal income in the region is greatly below the national average; and lack of adequate access to capital has made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region. In addition, the development of key infrastructures--such as water and wastewater, transportation, public health, and telecommunications-- has not kept pace with the population explosion and the increase in cross-border commerce. The counties in the Southwest border region are among the most economically distressed in the nation. In fact, there are only a few such regions of economic distress throughout the country--almost all of which are currently served by regional economic development commissions. These commissions, which are authorized by Congress, include the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Denali Commission. In order to address the needs of the border region in a similar fashion, I propose the creation of a regional economic development authority for the Southwest border. My bill, which is modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission, is based on four guiding principles. First, it starts from the premise that the people who live in the southwest border region know best when it comes to making decisions that affect their communities. Second, it employs a regional approach to economic development and encourages communities to work across county and state lines when appropriate. All too often, past efforts to improve the Southwest border region have hit roadblocks as a result of poor coordination and communication between communities. Third, it creates an economic development entity that is independent--meaning it will be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of border communities, without being subject to the politics of Federal agencies. Finally, it brings together representatives of the four Southwest border States and the Federal Government as equal partners, all of whom will work to improve the quality of life and standard of living for border residents. This is not just another commission, and it is certainly not just another grant program. I believe the Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will help leverage new private sector funding, but also will help better target Federal funding to those projects that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome of increased economic development. The legislation accomplishes this through a sensible mechanism of development planning. Under the bill, communities in each of the four border States will work through ``local development districts'' to create development plans that reflect the needs and priorities specific to each locality. These local development plans then go to the State in which the communities are located, where they become the basis for a State development plan. The four State development plans, in turn, from the basis for a regional development plan, which is put together by the Authority. The purpose of this planning process is to ensure that local priorities are reflected in the projects funded by the Authority, while also providing flexibility to the Authority to fund projects that are regional in nature. This process has several advantages. First, by ensuring that Federal dollars are targeted to projects that have gone through thorough planning at the local level, we will greatly improve the probability of success for those projects--thereby increasing the Federal Government's return on its investment. Second, local development plans are essential to attracting private sector funding. Increased private investment means less need for Federal, State, and local public sector funding. Third, combining resources in such a way will help communities get more funding then they can currently get from any one program. This is particularly important now as we in Congress grapple with how to fund the needs of the border in the current budget climate. I believe there are additional benefits to be derived from the Border Authority. As the only independent, quasi-Federal entity charged with economic development for the entire Southwest border region, the Authority will become a clearinghouse of sorts on all the funding available to the border region. This will enable the Authority to help border communities learn which programs are best suited to their needs and most likely to achieve the goals of their local development plans. Another benefit is its focus on economically distressed counties. Under the bill, the Authority can provide funding to increase the Federal share of a federal grant program to up to 90 percent of the total cost. This is particularly helpful to the many communities that are often unable to utilize federal funding because they can't afford the required local match. For far too long the needs of the Southwest Border have been ignored, overlooked, or underfunded. I am confident that the creation of a Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will call attention to the great needs that exist along the border, but also provide resources to local communities where the dollars will do the most good. I urge the Senate to move swiftly on this legislation, and I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation along with Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison that will help raise the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of Americans who live near the U.S.-Mexico Border. The ``Southwest Regional Border Authority Act'' would create an economic development authority for the Southwest border region, charged with awarding grants to border communities in support of their local economic development projects. The need for a Regional Border Authority is acute: the poverty rate in the Southwest border region is 20 percent--nearly double the national average; unemployment rates in Southwest border counties often reach as high as five times the national unemployment rate; per capita personal income in the region is greatly below the national average; and lack of adequate access to capital has made it difficult for businesses to start up in the region. In addition, the development of key infrastructures--such as water and wastewater, transportation, public health, and telecommunications-- has not kept pace with the population explosion and the increase in cross-border commerce. The counties in the Southwest border region are among the most economically distressed in the nation. In fact, there are only a few such regions of economic distress throughout the country--almost all of which are currently served by regional economic development commissions. These commissions, which are authorized by Congress, include the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Delta Regional Authority, and the Denali Commission. In order to address the needs of the border region in a similar fashion, I propose the creation of a regional economic development authority for the Southwest border. My bill, which is modeled after the Appalachian Regional Commission, is based on four guiding principles. First, it starts from the premise that the people who live in the southwest border region know best when it comes to making decisions that affect their communities. Second, it employs a regional approach to economic development and encourages communities to work across county and state lines when appropriate. All too often, past efforts to improve the Southwest border region have hit roadblocks as a result of poor coordination and communication between communities. Third, it creates an economic development entity that is independent--meaning it will be able to make decisions that are in the best interest of border communities, without being subject to the politics of Federal agencies. Finally, it brings together representatives of the four Southwest border States and the Federal Government as equal partners, all of whom will work to improve the quality of life and standard of living for border residents. This is not just another commission, and it is certainly not just another grant program. I believe the Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will help leverage new private sector funding, but also will help better target Federal funding to those projects that are most likely to achieve the desired outcome of increased economic development. The legislation accomplishes this through a sensible mechanism of development planning. Under the bill, communities in each of the four border States will work through ``local development districts'' to create development plans that reflect the needs and priorities specific to each locality. These local development plans then go to the State in which the communities are located, where they become the basis for a State development plan. The four State development plans, in turn, from the basis for a regional development plan, which is put together by the Authority. The purpose of this planning process is to ensure that local priorities are reflected in the projects funded by the Authority, while also providing flexibility to the Authority to fund projects that are regional in nature. This process has several advantages. First, by ensuring that Federal dollars are targeted to projects that have gone through thorough planning at the local level, we will greatly improve the probability of success for those projects--thereby increasing the Federal Government's return on its investment. Second, local development plans are essential to attracting private sector funding. Increased private investment means less need for Federal, State, and local public sector funding. Third, combining resources in such a way will help communities get more funding then they can currently get from any one program. This is particularly important now as we in Congress grapple with how to fund the needs of the border in the current budget climate. I believe there are additional benefits to be derived from the Border Authority. As the only independent, quasi-Federal entity charged with economic development for the entire Southwest border region, the Authority will become a clearinghouse of sorts on all the funding available to the border region. This will enable the Authority to help border communities learn which programs are best suited to their needs and most likely to achieve the goals of their local development plans. Another benefit is its focus on economically distressed counties. Under the bill, the Authority can provide funding to increase the Federal share of a federal grant program to up to 90 percent of the total cost. This is particularly helpful to the many communities that are often unable to utilize federal funding because they can't afford the required local match. For far too long the needs of the Southwest Border have been ignored, overlooked, or underfunded. I am confident that the creation of a Southwest Regional Border Authority not only will call attention to the great needs that exist along the border, but also provide resources to local communities where the dollars will do the most good. I urge the Senate to move swiftly on this legislation, and I ask my colleagues for their support. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to address the energy needs of Native Americans in this country. In doing so, I hope to build upon the widespread support for these provisions that was evident during the energy bill debate in the 107th Congress. That support continues as I am pleased to note that Senators Inouye, Campbell and Daschle are original cosponsors of this measure. I'd like to specifically recognize the work of Senator Inouye and his staff in putting together this bill. I appreciate their significant contribution to its content. Energy matters concerning Native Americans raise two different issues that warrant attention. First, tribal lands contain significant and diverse energy resources and therefore have a role to play in the area of national energy policy. Second, there continues to be a lack of basic energy infrastructure on a number of reservations. With respect to the first issue, a significant share of domestic energy resources are located on Indian lands. Over the last 20 years, Indian lands have contributed approximately 11 percent of the Nation's onshore oil and natural gas production, and 11 percent of its coal production. This level of contribution could increase in the future given available supplies of fossil energy resources and the potential development of significant renewable energy resources. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates that there are almost 90 reservations with energy resource potential, including oil and gas, coal and coal bed methane, wind, and geothermal resources. Developing these resources, particularly those such as wind power that have the capability to enable tribes to generate electricity on-reservation, requires dealing with current obstacles such as limited transmission capacity. As for on-reservation energy needs, there is much to be done. A recent Department of Energy report estimated that 14.2 percent of all Native American homes on reservations have no access to electricity compared to just 1.4 percent of all U.S. households. The situation is especially acute on the Navajo Reservation where approximately 37 percent of Navajo homes do not have electricity. Moreover, the average Indian household spends 4 percent of its income on electricity, twice that of the average for all U.S. households. The high cost of energy is particularly harmful to reservation communities, where unemployment averages 43 percent. Another 33 percent who live in and around those communities earn wages below the poverty level. Given these statistics, it is clear that Indian tribes with substantial energy resources and high unemployment rates have a critical interest in enhancing their participation in the development of energy resources as well as providing electrical services to their reservation communities. The bill being introduced today is a comprehensive approach to the energy issues facing Native Americans. I believe it will assist tribes to develop and utilize available energy supplies, thereby improving on- reservation quality of life while also assisting tribes as they continue to move towards economic self-sufficiency. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bill and am hopeful that this important legislation can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bipartisan bill to address the energy needs of Native Americans in this country. In doing so, I hope to build upon the widespread support for these provisions that was evident during the energy bill debate in the 107th Congress. That support continues as I am pleased to note that Senators Inouye, Campbell and Daschle are original cosponsors of this measure. I'd like to specifically recognize the work of Senator Inouye and his staff in putting together this bill. I appreciate their significant contribution to its content. Energy matters concerning Native Americans raise two different issues that warrant attention. First, tribal lands contain significant and diverse energy resources and therefore have a role to play in the area of national energy policy. Second, there continues to be a lack of basic energy infrastructure on a number of reservations. With respect to the first issue, a significant share of domestic energy resources are located on Indian lands. Over the last 20 years, Indian lands have contributed approximately 11 percent of the Nation's onshore oil and natural gas production, and 11 percent of its coal production. This level of contribution could increase in the future given available supplies of fossil energy resources and the potential development of significant renewable energy resources. The Bureau of Indian Affairs estimates that there are almost 90 reservations with energy resource potential, including oil and gas, coal and coal bed methane, wind, and geothermal resources. Developing these resources, particularly those such as wind power that have the capability to enable tribes to generate electricity on-reservation, requires dealing with current obstacles such as limited transmission capacity. As for on-reservation energy needs, there is much to be done. A recent Department of Energy report estimated that 14.2 percent of all Native American homes on reservations have no access to electricity compared to just 1.4 percent of all U.S. households. The situation is especially acute on the Navajo Reservation where approximately 37 percent of Navajo homes do not have electricity. Moreover, the average Indian household spends 4 percent of its income on electricity, twice that of the average for all U.S. households. The high cost of energy is particularly harmful to reservation communities, where unemployment averages 43 percent. Another 33 percent who live in and around those communities earn wages below the poverty level. Given these statistics, it is clear that Indian tribes with substantial energy resources and high unemployment rates have a critical interest in enhancing their participation in the development of energy resources as well as providing electrical services to their reservation communities. The bill being introduced today is a comprehensive approach to the energy issues facing Native Americans. I believe it will assist tribes to develop and utilize available energy supplies, thereby improving on- reservation quality of life while also assisting tribes as they continue to move towards economic self-sufficiency. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this bill and am hopeful that this important legislation can be enacted this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. Today, with great pleasure I am introducing the Southwest Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new Southwest Bridge Research Center is a cooperative effort between New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center, comprising the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network. One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another. Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the well-known Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, New Mexico. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, New Mexico, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with over 48,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges. A little known, and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 84,000, or 14 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 States. For example, this chart shows some of the States with some of the highest percentage of deficient bridges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of Number of structurally State Number of structurally deficient bridges deficient bridges (in bridges percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma 22,708 7,605 33.5 Missouri 23,604 6,083 25.8 Rhode Island 749 187 25.0 Pennsylvania 22,092 5,418 24.5 South Dakota 6,001 1,398 23.3 Mississippi 16,825 3,694 22.0 Iowa 25,030 5,036 20.1 North Dakota 4,517 871 19.3 Michigan 10,631 2,012 18.9 Louisiana 13,426 2,425 18.1 Alabama 15,641 2,677 17.1 North Carolina 16,991 2,513 14.8 Kansas 25,638 3,465 13.5 Ohio 27,952 3,304 11.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) System, December 2001. Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent of rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average cost required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year. Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. About one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and an amazing 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,000 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient. I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation. To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces. This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. More recently, in 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection. I ask unanimous consent that two articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record, exhibits one and two. NMSU is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. It has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition. At the same time, Oklahoma State University leads the Nation in the development of the Geothermal Smart Bridge System, which uses energy stored in the earth itself to help keep bridges free of ice and snow. OSU is also performing cutting edge research on high-performance structural materials frequently used in bridges including concrete, steel, and timber. At the University of Oklahoma, a multidisciplinary team of researchers is working to develop a ``smart'' vehicle-bridge system that is expected to reduce the impact of moving trucks on bridge structures, thereby increasing the lifespan of highway bridges. The UO team is also expert in the development of high-performance concrete and of sensors for non-destructive testing. Of course, the Oklahoma Transportation Center was also heavily involved last year in the rebuilding of the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, OK, after it collapsed when struck by a barge. The bridge was reopened to traffic only 64 days after the accident. This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at these three universities. All three institutions are widely recognized as national leaders in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for these three nationally recognized universities to collaborate in operating the Southwest Bridge Research Center. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the Southwest Bridge Research Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the Oklahoma Transportation Center. I do believe the three universities have earned this honor. In fact, in some ways, Congress has already recognized their fine work of the three centers. For example, the University of Oklahoma was allotted $3.5 million in TEA-21 for research work on intelligent stiffeners for bridge stress reduction and Oklahoma State received $3.5 million for work on the geothermal heat pump smart bridge program. I am pleased to have also played a part. At my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University and an additional $250,000 in the current fiscal year. The specific purpose of the Southwest Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation. Building on the three universities' research work, the Southwest Bridge Research Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities. The bill provides $3 million in funding from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the center. New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation. I ask all senators to support the designation of a new Southwest Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the three universities and a letter from Rhonda Faught, the Secretary of New Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. Today, with great pleasure I am introducing the Southwest Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2003. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new Southwest Bridge Research Center is a cooperative effort between New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center, comprising the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network. One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another. Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the well-known Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, New Mexico. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, New Mexico, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with over 48,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges. A little known, and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 84,000, or 14 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 States. For example, this chart shows some of the States with some of the highest percentage of deficient bridges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of Number of structurally State Number of structurally deficient bridges deficient bridges (in bridges percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma 22,708 7,605 33.5 Missouri 23,604 6,083 25.8 Rhode Island 749 187 25.0 Pennsylvania 22,092 5,418 24.5 South Dakota 6,001 1,398 23.3 Mississippi 16,825 3,694 22.0 Iowa 25,030 5,036 20.1 North Dakota 4,517 871 19.3 Michigan 10,631 2,012 18.9 Louisiana 13,426 2,425 18.1 Alabama 15,641 2,677 17.1 North Carolina 16,991 2,513 14.8 Kansas 25,638 3,465 13.5 Ohio 27,952 3,304 11.8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Source: FHWA National Bridge Inventory (NBI) System, December 2001. Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent of rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average cost required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year. Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. About one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and an amazing 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,000 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient. I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation. To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces. This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. More recently, in 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection. I ask unanimous consent that two articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record, exhibits one and two. NMSU is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. It has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition. At the same time, Oklahoma State University leads the Nation in the development of the Geothermal Smart Bridge System, which uses energy stored in the earth itself to help keep bridges free of ice and snow. OSU is also performing cutting edge research on high-performance structural materials frequently used in bridges including concrete, steel, and timber. At the University of Oklahoma, a multidisciplinary team of researchers is working to develop a ``smart'' vehicle-bridge system that is expected to reduce the impact of moving trucks on bridge structures, thereby increasing the lifespan of highway bridges. The UO team is also expert in the development of high-performance concrete and of sensors for non-destructive testing. Of course, the Oklahoma Transportation Center was also heavily involved last year in the rebuilding of the Interstate 40 bridge over the Arkansas River near Webbers Falls, OK, after it collapsed when struck by a barge. The bridge was reopened to traffic only 64 days after the accident. This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at these three universities. All three institutions are widely recognized as national leaders in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for these three nationally recognized universities to collaborate in operating the Southwest Bridge Research Center. The bill I am introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the Southwest Bridge Research Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the Oklahoma Transportation Center. I do believe the three universities have earned this honor. In fact, in some ways, Congress has already recognized their fine work of the three centers. For example, the University of Oklahoma was allotted $3.5 million in TEA-21 for research work on intelligent stiffeners for bridge stress reduction and Oklahoma State received $3.5 million for work on the geothermal heat pump smart bridge program. I am pleased to have also played a part. At my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University and an additional $250,000 in the current fiscal year. The specific purpose of the Southwest Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation. Building on the three universities' research work, the Southwest Bridge Research Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities. The bill provides $3 million in funding from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the center. New Mexico State University and the Oklahoma Transportation Center have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation. I ask all senators to support the designation of a new Southwest Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I ask unanimous consent that a letter of support from the three universities and a letter from Rhonda Faught, the Secretary of New Mexico's State Highway and Transportation Department be printed in the Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas. In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care. While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita. New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services, particularly in underserved areas. Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, because of a series of disincentives in the legislation. The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they are eligible. Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent. The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in Health Provider Shortage Areas. Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced. The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated. While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician services. I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care. The following organizations have expressed support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the bill. The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in rural areas. I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest highway systems in the world. Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways. To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources on the Nation's most important roads. Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic. The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs. The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas. I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 million vehicle-miles. The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils. Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System. In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done. New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads. Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to four-lane divided highways. As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane divided highway. Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation. New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles. In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine. I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane routes. The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund. My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding provided in my bill. I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so- called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country. I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile. Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical projects are completed in the next six years. This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Lincoln, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2003'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in Health Professions Shortage Areas, HPSA. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. Rural areas are know to suffer from physician shortages, both primary care and specialty physicians. In fact, even though 20 percent of America lives in a rural area, less than 11 percent of physicians in the U.S., practice in rural areas. In my own State, the ongoing loss of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and in particular, specialty services. In many areas, the shortage of specialists exceeds that of the primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care. While the national ratio of physicians per population is 198 doctors per 100,000 persons, New Mexico ranks 33rd in the country with only 170 physicians per 100,000 population. We are not in a position to ``grow our own doctors'' either as New Mexico ranks 37th among the 46 States with medical schools in graduating physicians per capita. New Mexico, like many other States with large numbers health profession shortage areas, or HPSAs, must rely on its ability to recruit and retain physicians in underserved areas to meet the health care needs of its citizens. It was the original intent of the MIPP to do this, by allowing for physicians in underserved areas to receive an additional 10 percent add-on in payments for services rendered. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are meant to be an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services, particularly in underserved areas. Unfortunately, the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million, because of a series of disincentives in the legislation. The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that MIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this, a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for applying for the very payments for which they are eligible. Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent. The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2003 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: Placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier. Eliminating automatic provider audits. Directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare Incentive Payment Program Educational Program for Providers. Establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs, ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries' access to physician services. Continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in Health Provider Shortage Areas. Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced. The automatic audits triggered by this program, which are costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated. While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS to perform an ongoing analysis as to whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries' access to physician services. I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care. The following organizations have expressed support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, and the National Rural Health Association. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Lincoln and Cochran in sponsoring the bill. The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to ensure that States have the resources they need to upgrade major two-lane roads across the Nation to high-quality four-lane divided highways. The goals of this bill are to improve the safety of our most dangerous highways and to stimulate economic development in rural areas. I think most Senators would agree that the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways is one of the transportation marvels of the 20th century. The system's 46,000 miles of divided highways interconnect virtually every major urban area in the Nation. The system represents one of the most efficient and safest highway systems in the world. Unfortunately, when the Interstate System was planned, it left many rural communities and smaller urban areas without direct links to the high-quality transportation network that the interstate highways provide. Many of these smaller and rural communities continue to suffer economically because of the lack of high-quality four-lane highways. To address this issue, in 1995 Congress developed the concept of a National Highway System as a way of extending the benefits of an efficient highway network to all areas of the country. Congress designated the National Highway System to help focus Federal resources on the Nation's most important roads. Today there are about 160,000 miles on the National Highway System, including all of the interstate highways and all other routes that are important to the Nation's economy, defense, and general mobility. The NHS comprises only 4 percent of the Nation's roads, but carries more than 40 percent of all highway traffic, 75 percent of heavy truck traffic and 90 percent of tourist traffic. The NHS reaches nearly every part of the Nation. According to the Federal Highway Administration, about 90 percent of America's population lives within 5 miles of an NHS route. All urban areas with a population of more than 50,000, and 93 percent with a population of between 5,000 and 50,000, are within 5 miles of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 97 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs. The NHS is the critical transportation link for most of our Nation's rural areas. The Federal Highway Administration estimates that, of the 160,000 miles now on the National Highway System, fully 75 percent, or 119,000 miles, are in rural areas. Of the 1.2 trillion total vehicle miles traveled in 2000 on NHS roads, about 60 percent were in rural areas. I hope all Senators will agree that improving highway safety should be our top priority. When it comes to highway safety, the fact is that travel on four-lane roads is safer than two-lane roads. This is especially true in rural areas. According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 1998 the rate of traffic fatalities on all rural roads was 2.39 per 100-million vehicle miles; however, the rate on rural interstate highways was half as high--only 1.23 per 100 million vehicle-miles. The reason for the lower fatality rate on rural interstate highways should be obvious. When a road has only one lane in each direction, trucks and other slow-moving vehicles increase the hazard of passing. Vehicles turning on or off a two-lane road can also increase risk. A divided four-lane highway greatly reduces these perils. Of the 119,000 miles of rural NHS roads, about 33,000 miles are interstates and another 28,000 miles have been upgraded to four or more lanes. The remaining 58,000 miles--more than half of this rural highway network--are still only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System. In my State of New Mexico, we have made some progress toward upgrading our rural two-lane highways to four lanes. In recent years, US550 from Bernalillo to Bloomfield, US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad, and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis is nearly completed. But much more remains to be done. New Mexico has 2,647 miles of rural roads in the NHS. Eight hundred and ninety-two of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico's NHS highways, 1,755 miles are in the rural parts of my State, especially Chaves, Colfax, Eddy, Lincoln, Guadalupe, Otero, Quay, San Juan, and Union Counties. And almost 70 percent--1,217 miles--of New Mexico's rural NHS highways remain only two-lane roads. These two-lane roads are major transportation routes with heavy truck and commercial traffic. In 2000, a total of 10.3 billion vehicle miles were traveled on New Mexico's NHS highways, and about one quarter, or 2.7 billion miles, were traveled on these rural NHS roads. Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most important two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all Federal highway funding between 1992 and 2000 has gone either to roads in urban areas or to interstate highways. Consequently, there is a continuing shortfall in Federal highway funding needed to upgrade the most important rural two-lane roads. Our bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be improved to four-lane divided highways. As in many States, New Mexico's rural counties strongly believe their economic future depends on access to safe and efficient four-lane highways. Basic transportation infrastructure is one of the critical elements for companies choosing where to locate. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety and efficiency of a four-lane divided highway. Thus one of the top priorities for rural cities and counties in my State is to complete the four-lane upgrade of such key routes as US54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas state line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, and US666 from north of Gallup to Shiprock. These two-lane rural routes in New Mexico not only bear some of the State's heaviest truck and automobile traffic, but also are some of the State's most dangerous roads. In fact, US666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation. New Mexico is not alone among western states in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. For example, Texas has almost 3,500 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. Montana has 2,469 miles, Kansas has 2,293, Nebraska 1,964, Wyoming 1,924, Minnesota 1,897, and Missouri 1,853 miles. In the East, where States are smaller, many NHS routes remain only two lanes. In Vermont, 78 percent of rural NHS roads are only two lanes, in New Hampshire it's 84 percent and 99 percent in Maine. I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of travelers on the highest priority rural two-lane roads. Last year, I secured nearly $1 million in Federal funding to begin the upgrade of US64/87 between Clayton and Raton, which is part of the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. In addition, last week Senator Roberts and I introduced S. 290, which designates U.S. Highway 54 from El Paso, Texas, through New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma to Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor. Our bipartisan bill has four cosponsors. A high-priority corridor designation provides no additional Federal funding, but helps focus attention on the need to upgrade the nation's major two-lane routes. The purpose of the bill we are introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2003, is to provide direct Federal funding to States to upgrade existing two-lane roads in rural areas to safe and efficient four-lane divided highways. The States would determine which two-lane roads they wanted to upgrade. To be eligible for funding, the highway must be on the National Highway System or a congressionally designated High Priority Corridor. Our bill gives funding priority to upgrading the most dangerous two-lane highways, routes most affected by increased traffic as a result of NAFTA, highways that have high levels of commercial traffic, and projects that will help stimulate regional economic growth. Total funding for six years is $1.8 billion from the highway trust fund. My State bears a substantial burden in the maintenance and upgrading of its portion of critical national highways. New Mexico has 3.3 percent of the Nation's land area, but only 6 tenths of one percent of the population. We have 2.2 percent of all of the interstate highway miles and 1.7 percent of all other NHS miles. At the same time, as a border State, New Mexico is common route for trucks crossing the border with Mexico and heading to or coming from the east and west coasts. It is likely that the upgrading to four lanes of the most important NHS highways in New Mexico might not occur without the supplemental funding provided in my bill. I continue to believe strongly in the important role of highway infrastructure to economic development. Even in this age of the so- called ``new'' economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of our country. I recognize that the funding level in this bill is inadequate to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the next six years. Upgrading an existing two-lane road to a full four-lane divided highway can cost upward of one million dollars per mile. Moreover, some of the existing two-lane roads probably don't have sufficient traffic to justify upgrading at this time. In addition, some two-lane NHS routes pass through scenic areas where it may not be appropriate to upgrade to four lanes. However, I do believe the funding in this bill will take us a long way toward ensuring the most critical projects are completed in the next six years. This year Congress will take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. We are introducing this bipartisan bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes receives the attention it deserves as the debate on reauthorization begins. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senators Bond and Reid of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to hasten the work of upgrading rural two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, let me first thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his eloquent statement on the Estrada nomination and also his other statement about the level of funding for education contained in the omnibus appropriations bill. I know how hard he has worked on that issue for many years. I commend him for the progress that has been made, and I agree with him that much more progress needs to be made. I want to say a few words about the Estrada nomination and also talk about another aspect of the President's proposed budget to us, with which I have found serious concern. First, on the Estrada nomination for the DC Court of Appeals, Miguel Estrada has been nominated for that position, and, frankly, the concern I bring to this issue is that many of my good friends and people whom I respect in the House of Representatives, in the Hispanic Caucus, have indicated that they oppose his nomination. When I said many, I should have said all. They had quite a discussion and quite a period of investigation of this nomination, and they concluded unanimously that the Hispanic Caucus of the House of Representatives would oppose the nomination. I have been contacted by several members of that caucus and urged to resist the nomination in the Senate. As I say, I have not taken the time to look into it in detail myself, but I have great respect for these gentlemen and women who have worked hard on this issue, and their strong opposition is of concern to me. I am also concerned that not a single Democratic member of the Senate Judiciary Committee determined to support the nominee after hearing the nominee's answers to questions before the committee. I share my colleagues' concerns as expressed by many of those members on the Judiciary Committee that we simply do not have enough information about this nominee at this time to cast an informed vote. During his confirmation hearing, he was not willing to answer many basic questions that were propounded to him. He was evasive when asked about his judicial philosophy. He refused to provide samples of his work from the time he served in the Solicitor General's Office. There have been requests for information made that, in my view, have been reasonable. As I understand it, the chairman and ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and Senator Daschle are continuing to request additional information before any vote is cast on that nomination. Some have attempted to turn this debate into a debate about the nominee's ethnicity. I don't believe that is the issue. I have supported many Hispanic candidates. In my State, I had the great honor to recommend to President Clinton, our previous President, and he in fact appointed a Hispanic nominee to our Federal court in New Mexico. But that support was based on having a full record regarding the candidate's qualifications in each case. We do not have a full record as to this nominee at this point. I hope when we attain it, then we can move forward with the vote at sometime in the future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to reduce congestion and improve safety and security throughout the Nation's transportation network. Today I am introducing the National Transportation Modeling and Analysis Program Establishment Act, or NATMAP for short. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to complete an advanced computer model that will simulate, in a single integrated system, traffic flows over every major transportation mode, including highways, air traffic, railways, inland waterways, seaports, pipelines, and other intermodal connections. The advanced model will simulate flows of both passenger and freight traffic. Our transportation network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, and the energy to heat our homes and power our businesses all come to us over the Nation's vast transportation network. Originating with a producer in one region, materials and products may travel via any number of combinations of truck, rail, airplane, and barge before reaching their final destinations. Today, the Internet connects the world electronically. But it is our transportation network that provides the vital links for the movement of both people and goods domestically and around the world. According to the latest statistics, our transportation industry carries over 11 billion tons of freight per year worth about $7 trillion. Of the 3.7 trillion ton-miles of freight carried in 1998, 1.4 trillion went by rail, 1 trillion by truck, 673 billion by domestic water transportation, 620 billion by pipeline, and 14 billion by air carrier. Individuals also depend on our transportation system--be it passenger rail, commercial airline, intercity bus, or the family car--for business travel or simply to enjoy a family vacation. Excluding public transit, passengers on our highways traveled a total of 4.2 trillion passenger-miles in 1998. Airlines carried another 463 billion passenger-miles. Transit companies and rail lines carried 50 billion. We are also interconnected to the world's transportation system, and, as I am sure every Senator well knows, foreign trade is an increasingly critical component of our economy. Our Nation's seaports, international airports, and border crossing with Canada and Mexico are the gateways through which passengers and cargo flow between America and the rest of the world. The smooth flow of trade, both imports and exports, would not be possible without a robust transportation network and the direct links it provides to our international ports of entry. It should be clear that key to our continuing economic strength is a transportation system that is safe, secure and efficient. Today, we are fortunate to have one of the best transportation networks in the world, and I believe we need to keep it that way. However, we are starting to see signs of strain from the dramatic increase in traffic. For example, according to the Department of Transportation, from 1980 to 2000, highway travel alone increased a whopping 80 percent. Between 1993 and 1997, the total tons of freight activity grew by over 14 percent and truck activity grew by 21 percent. In the future, truck travel is expected to grow by more than 3 percent per year--nearly doubling by 2020. As a result of the increased highway traffic, the operational performance, a measure of congestion, has deteriorated dramatically. For example, FHWA estimates that a typical trip that would take 20 minutes in 1987 now takes over 30 minutes--a dramatic 50 percent increase. Meanwhile, the strong growth in foreign trade is putting increased pressure on ports, airports, and border crossings, as well as contributing to congestion throughout the transportation network. According to DoT, U.S. international trade more than doubled between 1990 and 2000, rising from $891 billion to $2.2 trillion. Congestion and delay inevitably result when traffic rates approach the capacity of a system to handle that traffic. I do believe increased congestion in our transportation system is a growing threat to the nation's economy. Delays in any part of the vast network lead to economic costs, wasted fuel, increased pollution, and a reduced quality of life. Moreover, in the future new security measures could also increase delays and disruptions in the flow of goods through our international gateways. To deal with the ever-increasing loading of our transportation network we will need to find ways to improve system efficiency as well as to expand some critical elements of the system. However, in planning for any improvements, we must examine the impact on the whole transportation system that would result from a change in one part of the system That's exactly the goal of the bill I am introducing today. By simulating the Nation's entire transportation infrastructure as a single, integrated system, the National Transportation Analysis and Modeling Program will allow policy makers at the State, regional, and national levels to evaluate the implications of new transportation policies and actions. To ensure that all possible interrelated impacts are included, the model must simulate individual carriers and the transportation infrastructure used by each of the carriers in an interdependent and dynamic system. The advantage of this simulation of individual carriers and shipments is that the nation's transportation system can be examined at any level of detail--from the path of an individual truck to national multi-modal traffic flows. Some of the transportation planning issues that could be addressed with NATMAP include: What infrastructure improvements result in the greatest gains to overall system security and efficiency? How would the network respond to shifts in population or trade flows? How would the system respond to major disruptions caused by a natural disaster or another unthinkable terrorist attack? What effect would system delays due to increased security measures have on traffic flow and congestion? Preliminary work on an advanced transportation model has been underway for several years at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As I'm sure most senators know, Los Alamos has a long and impressive history in computer simulations of complex systems, including the recent completion of the TRANSIMS model of transportation systems in metropolitan areas. The development of TRANSIMS for FHWA was originally authorized in section 1210 of TEA-21. NATMAP builds on the original work at LANL on the TRANSIMS model. The initial work at LANL on NATMAP, funded in part by DoT, DoD, and the lab's own internal research and development program, demonstrated the technical feasibility of building a nation-wide freight transportation model that can simulate the movement of millions of trucks across the nation's highway system. During this initial development phase, the model was called the National Transportation Network and Analysis Capability, or NTNAC for short. In 2001, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, LANL further developed the model and completed an assessment of cargo flows resulting from trade between the U.S. and Latin America. These preliminary studies have clearly demonstrated the value to the nation of a new comprehensive modeling system. I do believe that the computer model represents a leap ahead in transportation modeling and analysis capability. Indeed, Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, in a letter to me dated April 9 of this year, had this to say about the early simulations: ``The DOT agrees that NTNAC shows great promise of producing a tool that would be useful for analyzing the national transportation system as a single, integrated system. We agree that NTNAC would provide DOT with important new capabilities to assess and formulate critical policy and investment options and to help address homeland security and vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation network.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record. The bill I am introducing today establishes a six-year program in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to complete the development of the advanced transportation simulation model. The program will also support early deployment of computer software and graphics packages to federal agencies and states for national, regional, or statewide transportation planning. The bill authorizes a total of $50 million from the Highway Trust Fund for this effort. When completed, NATMAP will provide the nation a tool to help formulate and analyze critical transportation policy and investment options, including major infrastructure requirements and vulnerabilities within that infrastructure. Congress will soon take up the reauthorization of TEA-21, the six- year transportation bill. I am introducing this bill today so my proposal can be fully considered by the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee and by the Administration as the next authorization bill is being developed. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe, the Chairman of the EPW Committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senator Bond, the Chairman of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and Senator Reid, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill in the reauthorization of TEA- 21. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to reduce congestion and improve safety and security throughout the Nation's transportation network. Today I am introducing the National Transportation Modeling and Analysis Program Establishment Act, or NATMAP for short. The purpose of this bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to complete an advanced computer model that will simulate, in a single integrated system, traffic flows over every major transportation mode, including highways, air traffic, railways, inland waterways, seaports, pipelines, and other intermodal connections. The advanced model will simulate flows of both passenger and freight traffic. Our transportation network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. The food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, and the energy to heat our homes and power our businesses all come to us over the Nation's vast transportation network. Originating with a producer in one region, materials and products may travel via any number of combinations of truck, rail, airplane, and barge before reaching their final destinations. Today, the Internet connects the world electronically. But it is our transportation network that provides the vital links for the movement of both people and goods domestically and around the world. According to the latest statistics, our transportation industry carries over 11 billion tons of freight per year worth about $7 trillion. Of the 3.7 trillion ton-miles of freight carried in 1998, 1.4 trillion went by rail, 1 trillion by truck, 673 billion by domestic water transportation, 620 billion by pipeline, and 14 billion by air carrier. Individuals also depend on our transportation system--be it passenger rail, commercial airline, intercity bus, or the family car--for business travel or simply to enjoy a family vacation. Excluding public transit, passengers on our highways traveled a total of 4.2 trillion passenger-miles in 1998. Airlines carried another 463 billion passenger-miles. Transit companies and rail lines carried 50 billion. We are also interconnected to the world's transportation system, and, as I am sure every Senator well knows, foreign trade is an increasingly critical component of our economy. Our Nation's seaports, international airports, and border crossing with Canada and Mexico are the gateways through which passengers and cargo flow between America and the rest of the world. The smooth flow of trade, both imports and exports, would not be possible without a robust transportation network and the direct links it provides to our international ports of entry. It should be clear that key to our continuing economic strength is a transportation system that is safe, secure and efficient. Today, we are fortunate to have one of the best transportation networks in the world, and I believe we need to keep it that way. However, we are starting to see signs of strain from the dramatic increase in traffic. For example, according to the Department of Transportation, from 1980 to 2000, highway travel alone increased a whopping 80 percent. Between 1993 and 1997, the total tons of freight activity grew by over 14 percent and truck activity grew by 21 percent. In the future, truck travel is expected to grow by more than 3 percent per year--nearly doubling by 2020. As a result of the increased highway traffic, the operational performance, a measure of congestion, has deteriorated dramatically. For example, FHWA estimates that a typical trip that would take 20 minutes in 1987 now takes over 30 minutes--a dramatic 50 percent increase. Meanwhile, the strong growth in foreign trade is putting increased pressure on ports, airports, and border crossings, as well as contributing to congestion throughout the transportation network. According to DoT, U.S. international trade more than doubled between 1990 and 2000, rising from $891 billion to $2.2 trillion. Congestion and delay inevitably result when traffic rates approach the capacity of a system to handle that traffic. I do believe increased congestion in our transportation system is a growing threat to the nation's economy. Delays in any part of the vast network lead to economic costs, wasted fuel, increased pollution, and a reduced quality of life. Moreover, in the future new security measures could also increase delays and disruptions in the flow of goods through our international gateways. To deal with the ever-increasing loading of our transportation network we will need to find ways to improve system efficiency as well as to expand some critical elements of the system. However, in planning for any improvements, we must examine the impact on the whole transportation system that would result from a change in one part of the system That's exactly the goal of the bill I am introducing today. By simulating the Nation's entire transportation infrastructure as a single, integrated system, the National Transportation Analysis and Modeling Program will allow policy makers at the State, regional, and national levels to evaluate the implications of new transportation policies and actions. To ensure that all possible interrelated impacts are included, the model must simulate individual carriers and the transportation infrastructure used by each of the carriers in an interdependent and dynamic system. The advantage of this simulation of individual carriers and shipments is that the nation's transportation system can be examined at any level of detail--from the path of an individual truck to national multi-modal traffic flows. Some of the transportation planning issues that could be addressed with NATMAP include: What infrastructure improvements result in the greatest gains to overall system security and efficiency? How would the network respond to shifts in population or trade flows? How would the system respond to major disruptions caused by a natural disaster or another unthinkable terrorist attack? What effect would system delays due to increased security measures have on traffic flow and congestion? Preliminary work on an advanced transportation model has been underway for several years at Los Alamos National Laboratory. As I'm sure most senators know, Los Alamos has a long and impressive history in computer simulations of complex systems, including the recent completion of the TRANSIMS model of transportation systems in metropolitan areas. The development of TRANSIMS for FHWA was originally authorized in section 1210 of TEA-21. NATMAP builds on the original work at LANL on the TRANSIMS model. The initial work at LANL on NATMAP, funded in part by DoT, DoD, and the lab's own internal research and development program, demonstrated the technical feasibility of building a nation-wide freight transportation model that can simulate the movement of millions of trucks across the nation's highway system. During this initial development phase, the model was called the National Transportation Network and Analysis Capability, or NTNAC for short. In 2001, with funding from the Federal Highway Administration, LANL further developed the model and completed an assessment of cargo flows resulting from trade between the U.S. and Latin America. These preliminary studies have clearly demonstrated the value to the nation of a new comprehensive modeling system. I do believe that the computer model represents a leap ahead in transportation modeling and analysis capability. Indeed, Secretary of Transportation Norm Mineta, in a letter to me dated April 9 of this year, had this to say about the early simulations: ``The DOT agrees that NTNAC shows great promise of producing a tool that would be useful for analyzing the national transportation system as a single, integrated system. We agree that NTNAC would provide DOT with important new capabilities to assess and formulate critical policy and investment options and to help address homeland security and vulnerabilities in the nation's transportation network.'' I ask unanimous consent that a copy of Secretary Mineta's letter be printed in the Record. The bill I am introducing today establishes a six-year program in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation to complete the development of the advanced transportation simulation model. The program will also support early deployment of computer software and graphics packages to federal agencies and states for national, regional, or statewide transportation planning. The bill authorizes a total of $50 million from the Highway Trust Fund for this effort. When completed, NATMAP will provide the nation a tool to help formulate and analyze critical transportation policy and investment options, including major infrastructure requirements and vulnerabilities within that infrastructure. Congress will soon take up the reauthorization of TEA-21, the six- year transportation bill. I am introducing this bill today so my proposal can be fully considered by the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee and by the Administration as the next authorization bill is being developed. I look forward to working with Senator Inhofe, the Chairman of the EPW Committee, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, as well as Senator Bond, the Chairman of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and Senator Reid, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill in the reauthorization of TEA- 21. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution today with Senators Bond, Lugar, DeWine, Feinstein, and Kennedy, designating March 31, 2003 as ``National Civilian Conservation Corps Day''. This day will mark the 70th anniversary of the signing of the Act that created the Civilian Conservation Corps, or CCC. In 1933, with our country in the grip of the Depression, President Franklin D. Roosevelt created the CCC to provide work and training for the many young men who so needed it, and to achieve the goal of protecting our Nation's precious natural resources. The program continued until 1942, when resources were shifted to support efforts in World War II and an estimated 75 percent of ex-CCCers joined the military. The accomplishments of the CCC between 1933 and 1942 are amazing by any standard. The program put over 3 million young men to work on natural resources conservation and public lands infrastructure improvements in camps in every State and the then-territories of Alaska and Hawaii, planting more than 3 billion trees, and developing more than 800 State parks. As importantly, the lives of these young men were often dramatically changed for the better by their enrollment. Many traveled for the first time, learned new trades, and developed self-confidence and discipline, while sending much-needed money home. Thousands of alumni remain active in 167 local chapters of the National Association of Civilian Conservation Corps Alumni Association, including the Roadrunner Chapter in my home State. They still meet and share the bonds of friendship and hard work they forged during their time in the CCC. This resolution would pay tribute to the lasting contribution of the CCC to natural resources conservation and infrastructure improvements, and to its outstanding success in providing employment and training to millions of Americans. I was pleased that the Senate commemorated the 69th anniversary of the creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps last year, and I hope the Senate will again honor the CCC on its 70th anniversary.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to speak for just a few minutes on the Senate floor about the proposal made last Friday by the Bush administration regarding Medicaid. The proposal was a disturbing one, in my view. It was to reform the Medicaid program by shifting to a block grant to the States. That is a recycled proposal, one we have seen before. It was touted, when described last Friday, as giving the States flexibility. It would give them flexibility. It would give them flexibility to drop benefits to low-income children, to drop benefits to pregnant women, to people with disabilities, and to the elderly. And it would give them flexibility to dramatically increase the cost sharing for those vulnerable populations. With over 41 million Americans who are currently uninsured, in my view, we should be trying to find ways to expand health coverage rather than finding new ways to reduce it. Unfortunately, the proposal allows States to continue Medicaid as it is or to convert the program into a block grant. This was tried in 1981 and again in 1996. The administration would encourage States to take the latter option; that is, to move to receipt of a block grant by encouragement of being temporarily offered increased dollars. That would be coupled with this offer of added flexibility to be able to reduce the benefits for their Medicaid beneficiaries and increase the costs being charged to those low-income and vulnerable populations. Secretary Thompson notes the proposal would clearly save the States money. This would only happen if the States decided to do what would almost certainly occur; that is, to cut benefits and increase cost sharing. Also, this proposal takes the Federal Government off the hook for helping States address their uninsured problems because under the proposal there would be no additional Federal money available to States if they attempted to expand coverage in the future. In order to expand coverage, the only option States would have would be to essentially rob Peter to pay Paul. In short, they could cut benefits or increase cost sharing for certain populations if they wanted to expand coverage to any others. The proposal is ostensibly based on the success of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the S-CHIP Program. Secretary Thompson said in his press conference that the proposal works by ``taking the principles of S-CHIP and applying them to Medicaid.'' It is ironic that the proposal actually eliminates CHIP by wrapping it into this block grant with Medicaid and with the Disproportionate Share Hospital Program, the DSH Program. It is surprising and disappointing to me that the administration is proposing to radically transform the identity and the nature of the Children's Health Insurance Program while also praising that program. It is a program that just about everyone lauds as having been quite successful at reducing the number of uninsured children in our country. So this new proposal by the administration has strong elements of the old bait-and-switch ploy that all of us see from time to time. It advertises that there will be more money available to States--the exact amount is $12.7 billion during the first 7 years--but then, after that first 7 years, it yanks away all that money, starting in the year 2011. Secretary Thompson noted at the press conference that he is not planning to be around at the time the $12.7 billion in reductions occurs 8 years from now. And the plan, I would say, clearly also counts on the fact that most of our current group of Governors who would be asked to make these changes will not be around either. However, that is exactly the time, 2011, when our Nation's baby boomers hit retirement age in much larger numbers. The long-term care costs within Medicaid will increase significantly during that period. Therefore, the Federal Government, under this proposal, would be dramatically stepping away from its commitment to help States and to help with the Nation's health safety net at a time when the demand for those services will obviously be increasing. The proposal is counting on the fact that the Governors will jump at the $12.7 billion that is being offered during these initial years and will let future Governors deal with the problem later on. It is my hope and my belief that the Nation's Governors will see this nonoffer for what it is; and that is, a very shortsighted effort to limit the Federal Government's role in Medicaid that will lead to cuts in access to care for those most in need of that care. In fact, under the proposal, States are left with nothing less than a Hobson's choice of alternatives. Both of the choices they would have would substantially weaken health insurance for low-income Medicaid beneficiaries. Under the first option that States would have, they would be allowed to continue to operate Medicaid without any financial relief from the Federal Government to help them get through the current fiscal crisis. States would have no option but to make deep cuts in their Medicaid Program during the next few years, if they choose that option. Under the second option, the States would get a fixed amount of Federal money for the millions of people who States have voluntarily decided to cover under Medicaid, and, as a result, Federal funding would be limited and not responsive to those items that it is now responsive to, such as economic recessions, epidemics, terrorist attacks, population growth, changes in the State's health care environment, or the growth in our Nation's elderly that we expect in the next decade. Nor would it be available to States wishing to expand coverage, as I indicated before, States wishing to reduce the uninsured rate. Although the administration's proposal advertises improved health, just as one would expect with a bait-and-switch proposal, it fails the test when you look at the details. I ask, How does the health of Medicaid beneficiaries improve by eliminating their entitlement to coverage and by allowing States the dramatic ability to reduce benefits and increase the costs that are shifted to those vulnerable populations? I am talking here about 85-year-old widows with incomes of just $800 a month. I am talking about pregnant women with incomes of $15,000 per year, or an 8-year-old boy from a family of three with an income of $19,000 per year or less. According to Karen Davis, Cathy Schoen, Michelle Doty, and Katie Tenney--all from the Commonwealth Fund--the two main purposes of health insurance are, first, ``assuring access to needed health care services and,'' secondly, ``preventing financial burdens from medical bills.'' When you propose, as this proposal last Friday does, to reduce benefits and increase cost sharing on low-income beneficiaries, clearly you fail in trying to accomplish either of these two main purposes. Just over a week ago, it was discovered that the Bush administration was allowing States to limit the number of emergency room visits to Medicaid beneficiaries regardless of whether the care sought was an emergency. That proposal allowed States to establish arbitrary limits, such as three visits per year. There was a huge hue and cry and the administration reversed this policy shift, but it is back in full force under this proposal related to Medicaid, as benefits would decrease and cost sharing would dramatically increase for Medicaid beneficiaries. This is not to state that our Governors are malevolent in their intent. Their goal is to do the best they can for their citizens. It is only to say that many States are facing unprecedented fiscal crises that force them into impossible choices, choices between health care coverage and other needed services. In fact, the States already have substantial flexibility in the Medicaid Program. About 65 percent of spending in that program is for either optional populations or for optional benefits that they have chosen to pay for. Instead, for some Governors, it may not be the flexibility they are seeking to exploit but the proposal's other aspects that eliminate the limitations on how States spend their Medicaid dollars. On several occasions in recent years, certain States worked to ``game'' the Federal dollars through a variety of mechanisms, such as provider taxes and donations, excessive payments to certain health providers that would be returned to the State via intergovernmental transfers or other mechanisms. These mechanisms to which I am referring largely benefited the budgets of the individual States and did not benefit anyone's health. Both the first Bush administration and the Clinton administration and the current Bush administration should be applauded for working hard to deal with those problems in the Medicaid system. However, it was revealed at the press conference that those mechanisms would once again be allowed if this newly presented proposal is adopted. Via these mechanisms, the Medicaid Program can be rapidly turned into nothing more than a giant revenuesharing program. Again, it is hard to see how such so-called innovation would improve health coverage for low-income Americans. Instead, there is a better approach to the problem, on which I have been working with Congressman John Dingell; we are preparing legislation to introduce in the next few weeks. Our Medicaid reform proposal will be based on the knowledge that States are facing both short-term and long-term problems with their Medicaid programs, and those problems need to be addressed. As such, our initiative would have the Federal Government step up rather than shirk its commitment to the States. In exchange, it will ask the States not to reduce their commitment to the Nation's poorest and neediest citizens. It does several things. Let me briefly outline them. First, it will provide States with much needed short-term and long- term fiscal relief. Secondly, it will increase Federal responsibility for Federal initiatives and for populations that are paid for by the Medicaid Program. Third, it will protect States against economic downturns and epidemics and health care inflation and demographic changes. Fourth, it will provide States with expanded coverage options, with real Federal fiscal support as opposed to this block grant proposal we have seen now from the administration. And, fifth, it will increase State flexibility in ways to improve the health of Medicaid beneficiaries rather than options to weaken their health as under the administration's proposal. The administration's proposal will fail in each of these regards. Let me describe them in a little more detail. First, we will propose a package that will give States both short- and long-term fiscal relief. This is in sharp contrast to the administration's block grant proposal that would leave States with no additional Federal commitment or help during economic downturns. Block grants do not adjust to problems such as downturns and epidemics and natural disasters and demographic changes, and they do not adjust for the very substantial health care inflation that we have been experiencing. Second, our proposal takes significant steps to properly assume Federal responsibility for Federal initiatives and for populations that are paid for under the Medicaid Program. This includes assumption of 100 percent of the cost for the premiums and cost sharing that the Medicaid Program provides for low-income Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare is a Federal responsibility, and these costs should be the Federal Government's responsibility. The same is true for a variety of other payments within Medicaid, including payments to urban Indian health organizations, to outstationed workers, to the breast and cervical cancer program, and payments to federally qualified health centers. Third, the administration claims its proposal gives States the ability to expand coverage to more people, including the mentally ill, chronically ill, those with HIV/AIDS, and those with substance abuse problems. The difficulty is the administration's proposal gives States the ability to do that but gives them no dollars with which to do it. States are given the ability to do this by robbing Peter to pay Paul. In sharp contrast, our proposal will give States new options to expand coverage and benefits in Medicare and CHIP, and States choosing to do so will have the Federal Government's commitment to participate with a financial commitment for more than half of those costs, as opposed to no commitment to participate under the administration's proposal. A fourth aspect of what we are going to propose is that we will grant States the flexibility they have been seeking to provide more efficient and improved health services for these low-income Medicaid beneficiaries. This includes allowing States to simplify eligibility, to emphasize home and community-based care rather than institutional care, and a number of other options. Our proposal specifically chooses not to take the course that the administration is pursuing in several areas. Unlike the administration, we do not grant States additional flexibility to cut benefits and eliminate quality protections and increase cost sharing on our Nation's most vulnerable populations. We do not propose to eliminate fiscal integrity standards such as those intended to ensure that Medicaid dollars are spent on health care and not on other purposes. And we do not, as the administration's proposal does, allow for the elimination of the CHIP program, the Children's Health Insurance Program, or the Disproportionate Share Hospital Program, the DSHP program. Finally, unlike the administration's efforts, our plan does not lock in interstate inequities and disparities on a permanent basis. In fact, the administration's proposal, as I understand it, as it was presented Friday, is particularly devastating to a State such as New Mexico. Our State currently has the highest rate of uninsured in the Nation. It is one of the fastest growing States in the country as well. It has per capita Medicaid expenditures that are well below the national average. The administration's proposal would therefore be a lose/lose/lose proposition for our State. First, it would prevent us from seeking additional Federal assistance for proposed expansions of coverage including the recently approved Federal waiver by the Federal Government to New Mexico that is so highly touted by the administration. Second, the block grant often fails to take into account differences in population growth, and we have a rapidly growing population. Finally, we would be forever locked in at an expenditure level way below the national average under this block grant proposal. During his State of the Union address this last week, the President said, ``Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society.'' That is a noble concept. But I would suggest that just as Medicare is the binding commitment of a caring society, Medicaid is as well. For this reason, the Federal Government should not step away from it or abandon its commitment to States or to the 43 million vulnerable citizens currently served by the Medicaid Program. Particularly, the Federal Government should not do this at a time of growing numbers of uninsured and just before the Nation's baby boomers begin to retire in large numbers. In the name of increasing personal responsibility of our Nation's neediest and sickest citizens, the administration is proposing that we at the Federal level shirk our responsibility. Rather than abandoning the poor at this critical time, we should be reconsidering the proposed tax breaks that we have been sent intending to help our wealthiest citizens. We need to be sure our priorities are in line with the priorities of the American people. The proposal we have received from the administration to block grant Medicaid clearly does not reflect the priorities the American people have.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the astronauts who perished aboard the Space Shuttle Columbia last Saturday, and to their families. It was a terrible tragedy we all suffered with the death of seven astronauts this last Saturday. We have heard many moving and eloquent tributes to those brave souls since the Columbia was lost. We have learned a great deal about the strength and courage and resourcefulness and humanity of each of those astronauts--Rick Husband, William McCool, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon. We have heard from the people who knew them best. Clearly, I and most of us here did not know them personally. However, I want to take just a moment more to speak about one of those astronauts in particular--Laurel Salton Clark. She spent part of her youth in Albuquerque in my home State and she maintained roots there. Her father lives with his wife in Albuquerque. And Laurel's brother, John Salton, is an engineer at Sandia National Laboratories. Laurel attended Hodgin Elementary School and Monroe Middle School, and frequently returned to Albuquerque for visits with family. She was a stellar student throughout her life. Her only B, according to her father, was one she received in high school in the typing class. She was a medical doctor. She was a flight surgeon in the Navy. And she made the astronaut corps when she was 5 months pregnant. She stood for what is best about our country. She was brave; she was strong; she was full of life. We are all diminished by her loss. We are also, of course, all diminished by the loss of each of the other brave astronauts who perished in that terrible tragedy on Saturday. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.