Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Burns, for yielding time for me to come and speak on behalf of this amendment. This is an amendment to provide emergency drought relief for ranchers and farmers. The amendment is based on Senator Baucus' bipartisan bill, S. 2800, of which I am very pleased to be a cosponsor, along with 16 other Senators. The ranching tradition in our State--in New Mexico--goes back 400 years to the time that the Spanish settled the State. The cattle and calf industry in our State is the single most important agricultural product that we have, which represents close to $1 billion a year in direct cash receipts to people in our State. Most of the cattle industry is concentrated in rural areas of the State, such as Union County, Chaves County, and Curry County. These are family-owned businesses. The families in New Mexico who own these businesses, in many cases, have ranched this same land for many generations. New Mexico, like much of the rest of the West, is now in the throes of the worst drought in at least 50 years. In some parts of the State, the drought has persisted for the last 3 years. According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, this has been one of New Mexico's driest years in recent history. The lack of normal snow and rainfall has left ranchers in our State with little pasture for grazing livestock. The Governor of New Mexico has declared a statewide drought emergency. He declared that in April. The Secretary of Agriculture has now declared every agricultural county in our State a disaster area. Since March of this year, the USDA has rated range and pasture conditions in New Mexico at an average of 81 percent poor or very poor. These conditions have made it impossible for ranchers to maintain their herds. As a result of the continuing drought, water tanks and stock ponds in New Mexico's rangeland have dried up. Ranchers in my State are hauling water and are supplementing feed for their herds. As grazing conditions have continued to worsen, many ranchers have culled their herds because of the cost of water and feed being more than they could bear at this stage. The drought will continue to impact producers in our State for years to come. Without emergency support such as contained in this amendment, the ongoing drought could very well put many of our ranching families out of business for good. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff of the USDA's Farm Service Agency in New Mexico for their fine work so far this year in helping New Mexico farmers and ranchers deal with the drought. They have used the limited tools available to them. Paul Gutierrez, Scotty Abbott, and Rosalie Ramirez have worked effectively to provide some limited economic help to producers throughout New Mexico. As a result, many producers in our State have been able to take advantage of low-cost loans, emergency haying and grazing on CRP land, or assistance through the USDA's Emergency Conservation Program. However, even with this limited help from USDA, the farmers and ranchers of New Mexico are continuing to suffer the economic effects of the drought. In previous years, Congress has provided emergency support through the Crop Disaster Program, the Livestock Assistance Program, and the American Indian Livestock Feed Program. I believe the drought disaster in New Mexico is so severe that assistance again this year is justified. I first voted to support drought relief in February during consideration of the farm bill. That amendment, which Senator Baucus offered, was adopted by a large vote of 69 to 30. Unfortunately, the House refused to include the emergency funding in the farm bill, and it was dropped in conference. Since the Senate voted in February, the conditions in my State have continued to deteriorate because of the lack of moisture. The emergency funding provided in this amendment will provide payments to ranchers for the losses they have suffered from the drought. The disaster funding is desperately needed. I hope all Senators will support the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Frank A. DuBois, who is the New Mexico Secretary of Agriculture, in support of emergency drought funding as provided for in this amendment, be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a Committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, September 18, at 9:30 a.m. in SD-366. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony concerning the effectiveness and sustainability of U.S. technology transfer programs for energy efficiency, nuclear, fossil and renewable energy; and to identify necessary changes to those programs to support U.S. competitiveness in the global marketplace. Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, ATTN: Jonathan Black, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C., 20510. For further information, please call Jennifer Michael on 4-7143 or Jonathan Black on 4-6722.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a Committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, September 17, at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen 366. The Committee will conduct an oversight hearing on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Remedying Undue Discrimination through Open Access Transmission Service and Standard Electricity Market Design, issued July 31. Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Jonathan Black, United States Senate, Dirksen 364, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Leon Lowery at 202/224-2209 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6722. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Of course, two-lane rural NHS roads are not unique to the large western states. Even 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. Mr. President, I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of cars and trucks on these important two-lanes roads. This year, I secured $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, Senator Roberts and I have introduced legislation to designate US 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 three 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-lanes routes. The sponsors of the bill have joined me in urging the Environment and Public Works Committee to act promptly on our bill. Mr. President, the purpose of the bill I am introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002, 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. In my bill, priority for funding is given 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. Mr. President, 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 not large enough to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the course of 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. Mr. President, next year Congress must take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. I am introducing this bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes will receive the attention it deserves in the debate on reauthorization. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Smith, the ranking member, as well as Senators Reid and Inhofe of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to begin the work of upgrading existing two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, New Mexico is not alone in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. Just last month my good friend Senator Reid of Nevada, chaired a hearing of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the topic of western transportation issues. One of the witnesses, Tom Stephens, Director of Nevada's Department of Transportation, testified that rural two-lane highways are of special concern in Nevada. He indicated that the number of head-on accidents, which almost always include at least on vehicle with no fault, were especially troublesome in his state. I would note that Nevada has about 1,300 miles of rural two-lane NHS highways. Excluding interstates, 92 percent of the rural NHS miles in Nevada are still only two-lane roads. Along with Nevada, many other States have long stretches of two-lane NHS roads. For example, Texas has over 3,400 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. In Montana, 95 percent of all rural NHS roads are still only two lanes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the number of miles of rural two-lane highways in selected States be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002. The purpose of this 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 areas 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 American'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 mile;s of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 90 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs. The NHS is the critical transportation link of most of our Nation's rural areas. According the Federal Highway Adminstration, 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 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 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 of 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 stil only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System. Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most dangerous two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all federal highways funding between 1992 and 200 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 highways. My bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be upgraded to four-lane divided highways. 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 Farmington and US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo are nearly completed. But much more remains to be done. New Mexico has 2,935 miles of rural roads in the NHS. One thousand of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico 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. 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 companies look for when 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 Vista, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas State line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, US 666 from north to Gallup to Shiprock, US285 from Clines Corners to Lamy, and US180 from Deming to Silver City. 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. In fact, US 666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a table showing recent accident, fatality and injury rates for these major two-lane highways in New Mexico be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Of course, two-lane rural NHS roads are not unique to the large western states. Even 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. Mr. President, I do believe it is time Congress took action to improve the safety of cars and trucks on these important two-lanes roads. This year, I secured $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, Senator Roberts and I have introduced legislation to designate US 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 three 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-lanes routes. The sponsors of the bill have joined me in urging the Environment and Public Works Committee to act promptly on our bill. Mr. President, the purpose of the bill I am introducing today, the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002, 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. In my bill, priority for funding is given 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. Mr. President, 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 not large enough to upgrade all of the remaining two-lane routes on the NHS in the course of 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. Mr. President, next year Congress must take up the reauthorization of the comprehensive six-year transportation bill, TEA-21. I am introducing this bill today to help ensure that the issue of the safety of rural two-lane NHS routes will receive the attention it deserves in the debate on reauthorization. I look forward to working with the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords, and Senator Smith, the ranking member, as well as Senators Reid and Inhofe of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee, to find a way to ensure additional federal resources are in place to begin the work of upgrading existing two-lane NHS roads to safe, efficient four-lane divided highways. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, New Mexico is not alone in needing to upgrade two-lane roads on the National Highway System. Just last month my good friend Senator Reid of Nevada, chaired a hearing of the Transportation, Infrastructure and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee on the topic of western transportation issues. One of the witnesses, Tom Stephens, Director of Nevada's Department of Transportation, testified that rural two-lane highways are of special concern in Nevada. He indicated that the number of head-on accidents, which almost always include at least on vehicle with no fault, were especially troublesome in his state. I would note that Nevada has about 1,300 miles of rural two-lane NHS highways. Excluding interstates, 92 percent of the rural NHS miles in Nevada are still only two-lane roads. Along with Nevada, many other States have long stretches of two-lane NHS roads. For example, Texas has over 3,400 miles of rural two-lane NHS roads. In Montana, 95 percent of all rural NHS roads are still only two lanes. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the number of miles of rural two-lane highways in selected States be printed at this point in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Rural Four-Lane Highway Safety and Development Act of 2002. The purpose of this 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 areas 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 American'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 mile;s of the NHS. Counties with NHS highways have 99 percent of all jobs, including 99 percent of all manufacturing jobs, 90 percent of mining jobs, and 93 percent of agricultural jobs. The NHS is the critical transportation link of most of our Nation's rural areas. According the Federal Highway Adminstration, 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 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 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 of 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 stil only two-lane roads with no central divider. These are the most dangerous roads on the National Highway System. Unfortunately, there are only very limited funds available to upgrade the most dangerous two-lane rural NHS roads to four-lane highways. According to a recent GAO study, over two-thirds of all federal highways funding between 1992 and 200 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 highways. My bill will help address the shortfall so that more rural segments of the NHS can be upgraded to four-lane divided highways. 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 Farmington and US285 from Interstate 40 to Carlsbad have been widened to four lanes. In addition, upgrading of US70 from Las Cruces to Clovis and a key segment of US54 from El Paso to Alamogordo are nearly completed. But much more remains to be done. New Mexico has 2,935 miles of rural roads in the NHS. One thousand of these NHS miles are interstates. Of the balance of New Mexico 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. 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 companies look for when 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 Vista, US62/180 from Carlsbad to the Texas State line, US64/87 from Clayton to Raton, US 666 from north to Gallup to Shiprock, US285 from Clines Corners to Lamy, and US180 from Deming to Silver City. 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. In fact, US 666 is considered one of the most dangerous two-lane highways in the Nation. I ask unanimous consent that a table showing recent accident, fatality and injury rates for these major two-lane highways in New Mexico be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a national historic landmark. I am excited to offer this bill because I believe that the history of the fort deserves Federal recognition. Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal government's role in Southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899. Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new Federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering form pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community. In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same. By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration. For these and many other reasons, believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a national historic landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senator Rockefeller that will make significant and long-overdue improvements in the programs that provide assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 5276, which was introduced by Representatives John Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Henry Waxman, and Pete Stark last week. Medicare provides coverage to all 40 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, regardless of income, but the cost of uncovered services, premiums, and cost-sharing is a serious burden on those with the lowest incomes. More than 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 200 percent of poverty, including 47 percent or 102,000 seniors in New Mexico, at income levels below $17,720 for an individual and $23,880 for a couple. These low-income beneficiaries are nearly twice as likely as higher-income beneficiaries to report their health status as fair or poor, but are less likely to have private supplemental insurance to cover the cost of uncovered services or Medicare cost-sharing. Poor beneficiaries also bear a disproportionate burden in out-of-pocket health care costs, spending more than a third of their incomes on health care compared to only 10 percent for higher-income beneficiaries. Medicaid, through what is known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs,'' fills in Medicare's gaps for low-income beneficiaries, providing supplemental coverage to 17 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. According to the Center for Medicare Education, which is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the costs for low-income beneficiaries enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, or QMB, program drops out-of-pocket expenditures from 34 percent to 13 percent for low-income beneficiaries. Moreover, Medicare beneficiaries with full Medicaid coverage have out-of-pocket expenses of about 5 percent of their income or $295 a year. This is a significant and important protection for our Nation's most financially vulnerable seniors and disabled citizens. Unfortunately, millions of beneficiaries, who are eligible for assistance under the Medicare Savings Programs, are not enrolled. Again, the Center for Medicare Education estimates that only half of the beneficiaries below poverty who are eligible for assistance are actually enrolled. Lack of outreach, complex and burdensome enrollment procedures, and restrictive asset requirements keep millions of seniors from receiving the assistance they desperately need. The ``Medicare Beneficiary Improvement Act of 2002'' takes a number of steps to address these problems. First, the legislation improves eligibility requirements for these programs. It raises the income level for eligibility for Medicare Part B premium assistance from 120 to 135 percent of poverty. This expansion was originally enacted in 1997 but it expires this year. The Congress needs to take action this year to maintain these important protections for the Nation's elderly and should take the additional action to make this provision permanent. In addition, the bill also ensures that all seniors who meet supplemental security income, or SSI, criteria are automatically eligible for assistance. Currently, automatic eligibility is only required in certain States, meaning that beneficiaries in other states may miss out on critical assistance unless they know enough to apply. The bill also eliminates the restrictive assets test that requires seniors to become completely destitute in order to qualify for assistance. Most low-income Medicare beneficiaries have limited assets to begin with but the asset restrictions are so severe, a beneficiary could not keep a fund or more than $1,500 for burial expenses without being disqualified from assistance. Moreover, own a car and you are likely to be denied financial protections under current law. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is estimated that up to 40 percent of low-income elderly that are otherwise eligible for financial assistance are denied protections due to the assets test. Any senior citizen making less than $13,290 a year who somehow has managed to scrape together $4,000 in a savings account for emergency are not eligible for financial protections from Medicare's cost sharing requirements. This runs counter to the goal of the Medicare program of providing security to the elderly rather than requiring impoverishment of them. Furthermore, the legislation take steps to eliminate barriers to enrollment under the program. Again, according to the Center for Medicare Education, ``While some states have conducted activities to reach and enroll people in the Medicare Savings Programs, there is a need for more outreach activity in states. For example, in 1999, only 18 states reported that they used a short application form for the Medicare Savings Programs, and less than half of the states placed eligibility workers in settings other than welfare offices.'' The bill allows Medicare beneficiaries to apply for assistance at local social security offices, encourages states to station eligibility workers at these offices, as well as at other sites frequented by senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, and ensures that beneficiaries can apply for the program using a simplified application form. In addition, this bill will ensure that once an individual is found eligible for assistance, the individual remains continuously eligible and does not need to re-apply annually. Another important step the legislation takes for low-income Medicare beneficiaries is that it provides 3 months of retroactive for QMBs. All other groups of beneficiaries have this protection currently. In addition, it prohibits estate recovery for QMBs for the cost of their cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program. The fear that Medicaid will recoup such costs from a surviving spouse is often a deterrent for many seniors to apply for such assistance. And finally, the legislation funds a demonstration project to improve information and coordination between federal state, and local entities to increase enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. This demonstration would help agencies identify individuals who are potentially eligible for assistance by coordinating various data and sharing it with states for the purposes of locating and enrolling these individuals. In addition, the legislation provides grant money for additional innovative outreach and enrollment projects for the Medicare Savings Programs. I would like to thank Representative Dingell for his leadership on this issue and am pleased to be introducing the Senate companion bill to his legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Roberts and Enzi that addresses some inequities in the current Medicare disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program. The bill incorporates the recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, to address the current inequities in the formula that harm rural hospitals and to better target the money to safety net hospitals. The Medicare DSH program was created with the purpose of assisting hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income beneficiaries, including seniors and disabled citizens served by Medicare. To protect access to low-income Medicare beneficiaries, DSH funds are provided to hospitals whose viability is threatened by providing care, including unreimbursed care, to low-income patients. Unfortunately, the current Medicare DSH formula does not adequately reflect or target money appropriately to these safety net institutions and it also inappropriately sets limits and inequities for rural hospitals, which are a life-line to many of our Nation's senior citizens and yet struggle due to such payment inequities in the Medicare system. This legislation adopts the recommendations of MedPAC to address these inequities. According to MedPAC from its March 2000 ``Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy''-- The Commission believes that special policy changes are needed to ameliorate several problems inherent in the existing disproportionate share payment system. The current low-income share measure does not include care to all the poor; most notably, it omits uncompensated care. Instead, the measure relies on the share of resources devoted to treating Medicaid recipients to represent the low-income patient load for the entire nonelderly poor population. New Mexico leads the Nation in the percentage of uninsured in its populations, according to the Census Bureau. Consequently, as MedPAC has noted repeatedly, the hospitals in my state lose more money to uncompensated care than similarly situated hospitals in other states. Because the Medicare DSH formula fails to account for uncompensated care directly but instead uses Medicaid as a proxy, the hospitals in New Mexico are not fairly compensated by the Medicare DSH formula. To address this problem, MedPAC recommends the formula ``include the costs of all poor patients in calculating low-income shares used to distribute disproportionate share payments. . . .'' The legislation we are introducing today would make that important change on behalf of our Nation's safety net hospitals. In addition, MedPAC notes that the current Medicare DSH program has 10 different formulas. MedPAC adds, ``In particular, current policy favors hospitals located in urban areas; almost half of urban hospitals receive DSH payments, compared with only one-fifth of rural facilities.'' Although BIPA improved the equity of DSH payments by raising the minimum low-income share needed to qualify for a payment adjustment for rural hospitals to that of urban hospitals, BIPA capped the DSH add-on payments a rural hospital can receive at just 5.25 percent, except for those rural hospitals already receiving higher payments due to the sole community hospital or rural referral center status. While MedPAC estimated the change made about 840 additional rural hospitals, or 40 percent of all rural facilities, eligible to receive DSH payments, the cap maintains some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals. Again, according to MedPAC in its June 2001 ``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America'': Rural hospitals were responsible for 12.8 percent of the care provided to Medicaid and uncompensated care patients nationally in 1999. With the DSH payment rules in effect through 2000, only 3.1 percent of payments went to rural facilities; BIPA rules would increase that proportion to 6.9 percent. To address this problem, MedPAC also recommends using the ``same formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by prospective payment.'' In incorporating the recommendations of MedPAC in this legislation, it is estimated the bill would increase rural DSH payments by 5.4 percent across the country, including an 8.4 percent increase for rural hospitals with less than 50 beds. Our Nation's public hospitals would also benefit greatly, as urban public hospitals and rural government facilities are estimated to receive increases of 3.6 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively, under this legislation. This legislation I am introducing with Senators Roberts and Enzi addresses some long-standing inequities in the Medicare DSH formula. I urge its adoption this year. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a national historic landmark. I am excited to offer this bill because I believe that the history of the fort deserves Federal recognition. Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal government's role in Southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site. From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899. Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new Federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering form pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community. In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same. By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration. For these and many other reasons, believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a national historic landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill with Senator Rockefeller that will make significant and long-overdue improvements in the programs that provide assistance to low-income Medicare beneficiaries. This bill is a companion bill to H.R. 5276, which was introduced by Representatives John Dingell, Sherrod Brown, Henry Waxman, and Pete Stark last week. Medicare provides coverage to all 40 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, regardless of income, but the cost of uncovered services, premiums, and cost-sharing is a serious burden on those with the lowest incomes. More than 40 percent of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below 200 percent of poverty, including 47 percent or 102,000 seniors in New Mexico, at income levels below $17,720 for an individual and $23,880 for a couple. These low-income beneficiaries are nearly twice as likely as higher-income beneficiaries to report their health status as fair or poor, but are less likely to have private supplemental insurance to cover the cost of uncovered services or Medicare cost-sharing. Poor beneficiaries also bear a disproportionate burden in out-of-pocket health care costs, spending more than a third of their incomes on health care compared to only 10 percent for higher-income beneficiaries. Medicaid, through what is known as the ``Medicare Savings Programs,'' fills in Medicare's gaps for low-income beneficiaries, providing supplemental coverage to 17 percent of all Medicare beneficiaries. According to the Center for Medicare Education, which is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the costs for low-income beneficiaries enrolled in the Qualified Medicare Beneficiary, or QMB, program drops out-of-pocket expenditures from 34 percent to 13 percent for low-income beneficiaries. Moreover, Medicare beneficiaries with full Medicaid coverage have out-of-pocket expenses of about 5 percent of their income or $295 a year. This is a significant and important protection for our Nation's most financially vulnerable seniors and disabled citizens. Unfortunately, millions of beneficiaries, who are eligible for assistance under the Medicare Savings Programs, are not enrolled. Again, the Center for Medicare Education estimates that only half of the beneficiaries below poverty who are eligible for assistance are actually enrolled. Lack of outreach, complex and burdensome enrollment procedures, and restrictive asset requirements keep millions of seniors from receiving the assistance they desperately need. The ``Medicare Beneficiary Improvement Act of 2002'' takes a number of steps to address these problems. First, the legislation improves eligibility requirements for these programs. It raises the income level for eligibility for Medicare Part B premium assistance from 120 to 135 percent of poverty. This expansion was originally enacted in 1997 but it expires this year. The Congress needs to take action this year to maintain these important protections for the Nation's elderly and should take the additional action to make this provision permanent. In addition, the bill also ensures that all seniors who meet supplemental security income, or SSI, criteria are automatically eligible for assistance. Currently, automatic eligibility is only required in certain States, meaning that beneficiaries in other states may miss out on critical assistance unless they know enough to apply. The bill also eliminates the restrictive assets test that requires seniors to become completely destitute in order to qualify for assistance. Most low-income Medicare beneficiaries have limited assets to begin with but the asset restrictions are so severe, a beneficiary could not keep a fund or more than $1,500 for burial expenses without being disqualified from assistance. Moreover, own a car and you are likely to be denied financial protections under current law. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is estimated that up to 40 percent of low-income elderly that are otherwise eligible for financial assistance are denied protections due to the assets test. Any senior citizen making less than $13,290 a year who somehow has managed to scrape together $4,000 in a savings account for emergency are not eligible for financial protections from Medicare's cost sharing requirements. This runs counter to the goal of the Medicare program of providing security to the elderly rather than requiring impoverishment of them. Furthermore, the legislation take steps to eliminate barriers to enrollment under the program. Again, according to the Center for Medicare Education, ``While some states have conducted activities to reach and enroll people in the Medicare Savings Programs, there is a need for more outreach activity in states. For example, in 1999, only 18 states reported that they used a short application form for the Medicare Savings Programs, and less than half of the states placed eligibility workers in settings other than welfare offices.'' The bill allows Medicare beneficiaries to apply for assistance at local social security offices, encourages states to station eligibility workers at these offices, as well as at other sites frequented by senior citizens and individuals with disabilities, and ensures that beneficiaries can apply for the program using a simplified application form. In addition, this bill will ensure that once an individual is found eligible for assistance, the individual remains continuously eligible and does not need to re-apply annually. Another important step the legislation takes for low-income Medicare beneficiaries is that it provides 3 months of retroactive for QMBs. All other groups of beneficiaries have this protection currently. In addition, it prohibits estate recovery for QMBs for the cost of their cost-sharing or benefits provided through this program. The fear that Medicaid will recoup such costs from a surviving spouse is often a deterrent for many seniors to apply for such assistance. And finally, the legislation funds a demonstration project to improve information and coordination between federal state, and local entities to increase enrollment of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. This demonstration would help agencies identify individuals who are potentially eligible for assistance by coordinating various data and sharing it with states for the purposes of locating and enrolling these individuals. In addition, the legislation provides grant money for additional innovative outreach and enrollment projects for the Medicare Savings Programs. I would like to thank Representative Dingell for his leadership on this issue and am pleased to be introducing the Senate companion bill to his legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Roberts and Enzi that addresses some inequities in the current Medicare disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program. The bill incorporates the recommendations by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, to address the current inequities in the formula that harm rural hospitals and to better target the money to safety net hospitals. The Medicare DSH program was created with the purpose of assisting hospitals that provide a substantial amount of care to low-income beneficiaries, including seniors and disabled citizens served by Medicare. To protect access to low-income Medicare beneficiaries, DSH funds are provided to hospitals whose viability is threatened by providing care, including unreimbursed care, to low-income patients. Unfortunately, the current Medicare DSH formula does not adequately reflect or target money appropriately to these safety net institutions and it also inappropriately sets limits and inequities for rural hospitals, which are a life-line to many of our Nation's senior citizens and yet struggle due to such payment inequities in the Medicare system. This legislation adopts the recommendations of MedPAC to address these inequities. According to MedPAC from its March 2000 ``Report to the Congress: Medicare Payment Policy''-- The Commission believes that special policy changes are needed to ameliorate several problems inherent in the existing disproportionate share payment system. The current low-income share measure does not include care to all the poor; most notably, it omits uncompensated care. Instead, the measure relies on the share of resources devoted to treating Medicaid recipients to represent the low-income patient load for the entire nonelderly poor population. New Mexico leads the Nation in the percentage of uninsured in its populations, according to the Census Bureau. Consequently, as MedPAC has noted repeatedly, the hospitals in my state lose more money to uncompensated care than similarly situated hospitals in other states. Because the Medicare DSH formula fails to account for uncompensated care directly but instead uses Medicaid as a proxy, the hospitals in New Mexico are not fairly compensated by the Medicare DSH formula. To address this problem, MedPAC recommends the formula ``include the costs of all poor patients in calculating low-income shares used to distribute disproportionate share payments. . . .'' The legislation we are introducing today would make that important change on behalf of our Nation's safety net hospitals. In addition, MedPAC notes that the current Medicare DSH program has 10 different formulas. MedPAC adds, ``In particular, current policy favors hospitals located in urban areas; almost half of urban hospitals receive DSH payments, compared with only one-fifth of rural facilities.'' Although BIPA improved the equity of DSH payments by raising the minimum low-income share needed to qualify for a payment adjustment for rural hospitals to that of urban hospitals, BIPA capped the DSH add-on payments a rural hospital can receive at just 5.25 percent, except for those rural hospitals already receiving higher payments due to the sole community hospital or rural referral center status. While MedPAC estimated the change made about 840 additional rural hospitals, or 40 percent of all rural facilities, eligible to receive DSH payments, the cap maintains some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals. Again, according to MedPAC in its June 2001 ``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America'': Rural hospitals were responsible for 12.8 percent of the care provided to Medicaid and uncompensated care patients nationally in 1999. With the DSH payment rules in effect through 2000, only 3.1 percent of payments went to rural facilities; BIPA rules would increase that proportion to 6.9 percent. To address this problem, MedPAC also recommends using the ``same formula to distribute payments to all hospitals covered by prospective payment.'' In incorporating the recommendations of MedPAC in this legislation, it is estimated the bill would increase rural DSH payments by 5.4 percent across the country, including an 8.4 percent increase for rural hospitals with less than 50 beds. Our Nation's public hospitals would also benefit greatly, as urban public hospitals and rural government facilities are estimated to receive increases of 3.6 percent and 7.7 percent, respectively, under this legislation. This legislation I am introducing with Senators Roberts and Enzi addresses some long-standing inequities in the Medicare DSH formula. I urge its adoption this year. 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 discuss the Trade bill that is being considered on the Senate floor. I will keep my comments short, as I know others wish to speak on the issue. I want to begin by emphasizing the positive. We have come a long way to where we are today on trade adjustment assistance. The provisions in the conference report are far better than what exists in current law. I want to thank all my colleagues for their support on trade adjustment assistance, and I want to thank the Administration for finding a path to compromise on this very important legislation. But I also want to take this opportunity to say that this conference report does not go nearly far enough in terms of what needs to be done. In fact, on trade adjustment assistance, I would have to say that the end result in many respects misses the point of what my original bill tried to do. In short, there were four goals to the original bill: First, we wanted to combine existing trade adjustment assistance programs and harmonize their various requirements so they would provide more effective and efficient results for individuals and communities; second, we wanted to recognize that trade frequently has regional impacts and create a program to help communities; third, we wanted to encourage greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local agencies that deal with individuals receiving trade adjustment assistance; and fourth, we wanted to establish accountability, reliability, speed, and consistency in the trade adjustment assistance program. Each of these goals was created with the view that the system needed to be fair, equitable, accessible, and implemented similarly no matter where you lived in the country. From my perspective, the bill that we have before us does not do this. Briefly, not all secondary workers, shifts in production, and contract workers are covered under this bill. There are no TAA for community provisions in this bill. The language that allowed the Senate Finance Committee to request the Department of Labor to initiate a certification is not in this bill. The language that compelled the Department of Labor to monitor the implementation of the program across states is not in this bill. The language that required the Department of Labor to submit an annual report to Congress is not in this bill. The language that encouraged greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local agencies on Trade Adjustment Assistance is not in this bill. And the language that established accountability, reliability, and consistency in the trade adjustment assistance program is not in this bill. I could go on, but this should give you an idea of the key components related to administration and implementation of trade adjustment assistance that were deleted in conference. I have no idea why this occurred, as it seems to me these provisions would be acceptable to Members on both sides of the aisle. But I want to emphasize here and now that these are not minor problems, as they are in fact the essence of whether trade adjustment assistance works well, or just works. The fact of the matter is we have created a trade adjustment assistance program that serves more people and that is both appropriate and long-overdue. But the program still does not cover all the people that are negatively affected by trade, and that is, I am afraid, inappropriate and equally long-overdue. Of equal significance, it does not guarantee that the people who are covered by trade adjustment assistance get the efficient, effective, and prompt services they deserve. These assurances are nowhere to be found in the bill. This is unfortunate and unsatisfactory, as it is the fundamental reason that I wrote the trade adjustment assistance legislation in the first place. Although we have come a long way on trade adjustment assistance, we have a longer way to go, and it is my intention to revisit this issue in the 108th Congress. I introduced this trade adjustment assistance bill, I will introduce another in the next Congress, and I hope my colleagues will support it On the fast-track bill, let me say that here too we did not go as far as I would have liked on a range of very important issues: labor, the environment, investment, and trade remedy laws. But that said, we have come farther than we ever have before in the past, and we have signaled to the administration and the international trade community that we will not enter into agreements that do not address these issues directly. As for the lack of ``teeth'' in the bill, I would have to agree to a certain extent. That said, there are provisions in this bill to ensure that Congress has very significant input in the trade negotiation process. Moreover, Congress has the option to withdraw fast-track authority if the administration does not consistently and honestly consult with Congress on these key trade issues. As far as I am concerned, the oversight provisions are the crux of the matter, as without them, even the strongest language on labor, or the environment, are meaningless. It is incumbent upon Congress now to analyze what occurs in trade negotiations and ensure that what is agreed to increases high-wage jobs and American competitiveness. In sum, I think there are significant problems with the trade bill, but not enough to warrant a vote in the negative. I think we have taken a strong step forward here in that this bill provides us with the tools to increase the economic security of the United States. I don't believe we help American workers by sitting back and doing nothing on trade. Rather, I think it is important that we take an active role in defining the terms of trade, and this bill allows us to do that. The debate on the trade bill occurred, we have found a compromise, and now it is time for the Administration and Congress to make trade work for the American people.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we are well past the time when the 39 million older Americans and disabled citizens should be receiving affordable, comprehensive, and reliable prescription drug coverage. More tan 225,000 of these citizens live in New Mexico. Medicare must be brought into the 21st century and that includes adding a prescription drug benefit. We must pay special attention to the needs of the most vulnerable--low-income seniors and people with disabilities. This is particularly important to New Mexico, where the median income of our senior citizens is just $11,370, or 15 percent below the national average. Under the current system, an unconscionable number of these people are forced to choose every day between filling a doctor's prescription with limited incomes or paying for some other basic need. As we consider the drug proposal before us, there are some important principles that I believe we should adopt. The first principle should be that we ensure that the most vulnerable are protected. That includes the neediest, or poorest, the sickest, or those with the greatest health care needs. With the Federal Government now running significant deficits, we clearly have a limited amount of money and cannot ensure all senior Americans and disabled citizens will get everything they need, but we should be sure the most vulnerable are protected. The second principle should be that we must use a delivery mechanism that is stable and that seniors can rely on. It must be a system that is accessible and not an untried or untested system. It must be a system that is reliable and stable and not one that potentially leaves seniors without prescription drug coverage or is in transition from year to year, as is often the case with the Medicare+Choice program now. Before us is the Graham-Smith-Lincoln-Bingaman amendment that meets these principles. It has been a pleasure to work with all three of them on this compromise and others with a similar desire to provide the most help to the neediest and the sickest, including Senators Chafee, Feinstein, and Nelson. This compromise offers the best hope for a prescription drug benefit this year and also compares well to the Grassley-Breaux amendment that received 48 votes in the Senate last week. In comparing these plans to ensure that the principles of protecting the most vulnerable and to ensure that the proposal is stable and reliable, the Graham-Smith amendment is the only one that meets the two basics, but critical, principles I have outlined. With regard to protecting the most vulnerable, the Graham-Smith amendment ensures that Medicare beneficiaries below 200 percent of poverty receive drug program assistance. This provides the 12.3 million low-income seniors, or over one-third of elderly beneficiaries, with some protections from rapidly increasing drug costs. In New Mexico, this protects over 100,000 low-income seniors, or 47 percent of elderly beneficiaries. For these financial vulnerable seniors, they will receive a comprehensive benefit under the Graham-Smith amendment that would be questionable under Grassley-Breaux. Briefly, the Graham-Smith amendment provides coverage up to 200 percent of poverty; limits low-income out- of-pocket expenses to just $2 and $5 per prescription compared to up to $3700 for beneficiaries below 200 percent of poverty in the alternative plan; and, provides coverage for low-income elderly that is as comprehensive as state pharmacy assistance programs and without a drop in employer coverage, which again, is in sharp contrast to Grassley-Breaux. That amendment provides more limited coverage than some elderly get through employer coverage or state pharmacy assistance programs. It makes little sense to spend almost $400 billion and have a consequence that some elderly will receive drug coverage worse than they currently receive, but that would be the consequence of Grassley- Breaux. I appreciate all the hard work Senators Grassley, Breaux, Jeffords, Snowe, and Hatch have put into their bill and I understand this aspect of their proposal is certainly an unintended consequence, but it is a consequence that CBO estimates will cause one-third of employer to drop retiree health coverage. Of great significance, the Graham-Smith amendment eliminates the assets test in Grassley-Breaux, which bars low-income beneficiaries from having total assets of more than $4,000 a year. Own a car under that proposal and you will likely be denied financial protections otherwise. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, it is estimated that up to 40 percent of low-income elderly would not pass the assets test even if they are willing to undergo it. In New Mexico, coverage of low-income elderly in Graham-Smith is twice that of Grassley-Breaux--102,000 elderly covered to just 50,000. In comparing the two proposals for those that are the sickest in society and have the most health care needs, Graham-Smith has a catastrophic limit of $3,300 out-of-pocket or 12 percent less than the $3,700 in the competing proposal. How do the plans fare with respect to providing health and financial security for the elderly and disabled? Again, Graham-Smith is a stronger proposal. The comparisons are stark. Graham-Smith requires a $25 annual fee compared to $288 per year or more under Grassley-Breaux. Graham-Smith builds on the current employer and state-based systems and does not supplant employer coverage in stark contrast to the unintended drop of one-third of retirees from employer-sponsored plans in the alternative proposal. Furthermore, the Grassley-Breaux amendment relies upon a virtually untried and untested system. For the full 37 years of the Medicare program, private insurance companies have had every opportunity to offer the elderly drug-only insurance plans. None have done so. This, my friends, is the definition of ``market failure'' and the very reason we have a Medicare program. We have evidence of only one instance in which we have a drug-only, private insurance model and that was attempted by the State of Nevada. It is estimated that their current effort cost taxpayers almost 60 percent more through private insurance than if the State had run the program itself. Yet, this is the model the Grassley plan would require all 39 million Medicare beneficiaries to participate in. This is clearly a risky proposition. Moreover, the proposal allows insurance companies to bid on an annual basis. Even if we can spend the billions of dollars necessary to induce private insurance companies to participate, we are not buying stability or reliability for the elderly. Bids would come in every year with plans coming and going, just as they do in the Medicare+Choice program. A prescription drug benefit should provide the elderly some security and not place them in some kind of grand experiment. We should not experiment with the health of our Nation's seniors and disabled. Furthermore, the Grassley-Breaux model allows insurance companies to charge whatever the market will bear. Beneficiary premium costs could be very high and vary by geographic area and vary by year-to-year. To deal with the similarity with Medicare+Choice, whereby health plans often pull out and leave seniors without their health plan, the Grassley bill requires the Secretary to provide the plans with whatever inducement or incentives necessary to ensure that people have a choice of at least two plans. The language reads: [T]he Administrator may provide financial incentives (including partial underwriting of risk) for an eligible entity to offer a Medicare Prescription Drug plan in that area. . . . This could cost billions and billions of dollars without giving the elderly any assurance that the plans will be affordable. For these reasons, I support the Graham-Miller amendment. It meets the principles of providing protections and security to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens through a system that is both reliable and stable. It is for these reasons that AARP and the National Council on Aging support Graham-Miller as well. This amendment appears to offer us the final opportunity to pass prescription drug coverage for our Nation's elderly this year. To those that criticize it because it does not do enough for the middle class, I agree and point out this should be seen as a first step and downpayment on more comprehensive coverage for the Nations elderly and disabled. However, if we do not take this first step, we are giving our Nation's seniors absolutely nothing. For those that voted for the Hagel-Ensign bill, I note that this proposal is very much like Hagel- Ensign in design, with a low-income benefit. Why is protecting the most financially vulnerable among our elderly objectionable? I think this is a terrific compromise that takes aspects from both the Democratic and Republican proposals. Mr. President, I believe the amendment Senators Graham and Smith have offered is a very good-faith effort to provide a genuine benefit to Medicare recipients. I am glad to support it. It is a product of a lot of discussion. Senator Lincoln deserves substantial credit, as do Senator Stabenow, Senator Feinstein, Senator Chafee, and Senator Miller. A great many Senators have worked on this issue, in addition to Senators Graham and Smith, and I particularly appreciate their leadership. Let me say that the need is enormous. I see it in my home State. Many of the most vulnerable in our society do have very difficult choices to make about whether to fill the prescriptions they are given by their doctors or to meet their other needs--pay their rent, pay their utilities, buy food for the family, whatever. We need to solve that problem, and we need to do so in a way that makes sense for all the people who benefit from the Medicare Program. There are some important principles that I think we need to keep in mind as we craft a Medicare prescription drug benefit. The first principle: We need to ensure the most vulnerable are protected. The second principle: We need to have a benefit for all Medicare beneficiaries, and I believe we are meeting both of those principles with this proposal. The third obvious principle: We need to have a delivery mechanism that is stable and upon which seniors can rely. It needs to be an accessible system. It should not be something that is untried and untested so that we do not get into the same kind of mess we had with Medicare+Choice in my State, and I think in many States around the country. I believe this amendment meets those principles. I believe it is a great benefit to us. Let me say briefly what the amendment does. I have a chart, which may be difficult for some to read, but let me go through it very briefly. The estimated cost of the Graham-Smith compromise is in the range of $390 billion. I think that is a reasonable price for this kind of a very major benefit. There is a benefit for all seniors. All seniors under the Medicare Program have a negotiated drug discount of something in the range of 30 percent, with a 5-percent Medicare payment and an additional discount added on to whatever discount can be negotiated through this program. In addition to that, the seniors have catastrophic insurance coverage above $3,300. So if any Medicare beneficiary pays $3,300 out of pocket, after that, with a small copayment of not more than $10, they will have the Government cover the cost of any additional drugs needed that year. There is a substantial benefit for low-income seniors. We are saying people with incomes of 200 percent of poverty or less are covered for all of their prescription drug needs, with a very small nominal $2 or $5 copayment, depending upon whether they purchase generic drugs or brand name drugs. This proposal is designed so that no employer will drop coverage for those who are presently covered. That is a very important provision. This amendment is also designed so there are no additional costs added to the States. Many of our States are faced with real financial difficulties because of the economic downturn, and this is not a time to be adding additional cost to the States. We have guaranteed in this proposal that they not be given additional costs. That is a summary of the amendment as it is drafted. What does it mean for my State? It means that all the Medicare beneficiaries in my State, everyone over 65, does get this very substantial catastrophic benefit, as well as the discounts. It also means that 47 percent of the senior Medicare beneficiaries in my State will fall into the category of 200 percent or less of poverty and will have all of their drug costs paid. Obviously, the choice we have to make is a difficult choice. We can do what is possible. Politics is the art of the possible, and I think all of us who have served in public office know that politics is the art of the possible. Maybe the possible plus 10 percent, but it is not a whole lot more than that. We need to get 60 votes. We need to get a prescription drug benefit that is understandable, that is straightforward, that is an add-on to the Medicare Program, and that is what we have proposed. We can do what is possible and adopt this amendment or we can take the approach that the perfect is the enemy of the good and that we are basically not going to go home with anything. We will continue to tell the senior citizens of our States that we were not able to come up with anything and give them excuses. I hope very much the Senate will not take that latter course. I hope the Senate will embrace this amendment and move ahead so that we can, in fact, deliver a prescription drug benefit. The time is well passed for us to do this. I believe it is very important work that we need to get accomplish.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. About 6 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am glad to yield to my colleague.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on June 25, a little over a month ago, I spoke on the Senate floor about the issue of the United Nations Population Fund. At that time, I called on the President to release the funding for this organization. This is funding we had appropriated in the Congress last December. I was extremely disappointed to learn that the Bush administration has now decided to eliminate the funding for the U.N. Population Fund. Once again, the administration has chosen to approach an issue unilaterally instead of to cooperate internationally with our allies. Once again, the administration has chosen domestic politics over the health and safety of women around the world. The administration's decision is contrary to the finding of the administration's own expert panel. The administration did set up a panel and asked them to look into the issue to determine whether or not there was a problem that should prevent them from making this funding available. That panel determined not only that the UNFPA, the United Nations Population Fund, does not condone or support in any way the violations of human rights or internationally agreed upon standards for family planning, it further found that the Fund is a force for progress, and that is a sentiment with which Secretary Powell himself publicly and wholeheartedly agreed when the panel came out with their announcement. The United Nations Population Fund works in over 150 countries. They help to give women around the world access to reproductive health care and family planning services, as well as services to ensure safe pregnancy and delivery. The U.N. Population Fund has been working in China and around the world to encourage nations to expand the availability of voluntary family planning information and services so that people everywhere have the right to decide freely and responsibly the number and the spacing of their children. The Fund is also a leader in the global effort to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. From everything I have been able to read, it is clear that the U.N. Population Fund does not perform or support performing abortions in any way. Anyone who says that Fund does support that activity just has not looked into the issue as this expert panel has. The U.N. Population Fund is a United Nations organization governed by the governments that make up the United Nations. Many of these governments fundamentally oppose abortion, and they would never let the United Nations Population Fund be involved in supplying abortions. The UNFPA is simply a tool of the member nations that is designed to implement their will, and that will is to help the most desperate women and their families in some of the poorest countries in the world who are suffering every day in very terrible ways. The $34 million we are discussing that has been denied by the administration to be used as the Congress intended would directly contribute to effective modern contraception for over 1 million couples. This $34 million would prevent over 100,000 unwanted pregnancies. It would prevent a quarter of a million unwanted births. It would help women avoid over 200,000 abortions and prevent thousands of maternal and child deaths in the same effort. Further, the Fund's policies of constructive engagement in China have been shown to result in much-needed progress and a reduction in some of the worst violations of human rights in that country. The administration's decision is another affront to the world's women. It follows on the administration's decision to impose the global gag rule on family planning providers, and also it follows upon the administration's unwillingness to champion the international treaty on the rights of women. I hope that the Senate, when we consider the foreign operations appropriations bill--and I assume we will either this week or shortly, when we return in September--will have broad support for the $50 million that hopefully will be included for the United Nations Population Fund in this upcoming fiscal year.

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is exactly right. We are spending a very substantial amount in trying to deal with the problem of HIV/AIDS in the world. We are being called upon by many of the world's leaders to spend substantially more, and, frankly, I think the drumbeat for us to spend more and more to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS will continue to grow.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend from Nevada, that is the major thrust of this effort. As good information is given to parents, to mothers, about these issues, good education and information can also be provided about how to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is an enormous problem, a terrible tragedy afflicting many of the undeveloped countries in the world.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response, those are the right numbers. I will go through them once more. The estimate we have is that this $34 million the Congress appropriated last December, it was intended to provide effective, modern contraception for over a million couples to prevent over 500,000 unwanted pregnancies, to prevent a quarter of a million unwanted births and to help women avoid over 200,000 abortions. So that is what we estimate that funding would be able to accomplish. Now, obviously, none of that will be accomplished during this fiscal year.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Again, let me respond by saying that is very true. The thrust of these efforts is to reduce the incidents of mothers dying while giving birth, reduce the incidents of child deaths, infant deaths. Clearly, that is the main thrust of what we are trying to accomplish with these funds.

Mr. BINGAMAN. In response to my friend's question, that is clearly the main thrust of this funding. It is to provide much-needed information to desperately poor women in these countries so they can make voluntary decisions about what they want to do, how many children they want to have, and what their options are as they move ahead. These are all voluntary programs by definition.