Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. 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. Next year Congress will 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 Jeffords, the Chairman of EPW, and Senator Smith, the ranking member, as well as Senator Reid, the Chairman of the Transportation, Infrastructure, and Nuclear Safety Subcommittee and Senator Inhofe, 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. 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 interconnections for the movement of both people and goods domestically and around the world. According to the latest statistics, today 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. Another 463 billion passenger-miles traveled by air carriers. Transit companies and rail lines carried another 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 one of keys to our continuing economic strength rests on 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 that portions of the system are beginning to strain under a 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. 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 cause increased 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 use the system more efficiently as well as to expand some critical elements of the system. However, in planning for any improvements, it is essential to 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 of the 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 issues and questions 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 delays in the system 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 the development of 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 TEA-21. 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 the NATMAP 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 effort: ``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.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce the STEP Act on behalf of myself and Senator Murray. This bill is a companion to the Education Works Act, which I introduced a couple of weeks ago. Both bills address the same issue, the need to support state efforts to use welfare to work strategies that combine work with a flexibility mix of education, training, and other supports. Study after study has demonstrated that states that use a combination of activities to help families move from welfare to work are more successful. For many welfare recipients, vocational training and postsecondary education led to work and, through substantial increases in earnings and job quality, long-term financial independence. This is important because although many have left welfare for work during the past several years, many have returned or live in poverty dependent on other government supports because they are working at low wages with limited benefits. In addition, many with multiple barriers remain on the rolls. As we move forward with the reauthorization process, we must do more to support state efforts to help these people find work and to ensure that all individuals leaving welfare are moving to employment that will provide long-term financial independence. The STEP Act and the Education Works Act will do just that. The Education Works Act deals with increasing state flexibility to determine the right mix of work with education and training. The STEP Act provides resources to States seeking to implement effective programs that combine work with education and training. One of the most effective types of these programs, particularly for the most difficult to serve TANF recipients, are transitional job programs. Transitional job programs provide subsidized, temporary, wage-paying jobs for 20 to 35 hours per week, along with access to job readiness, basic education, vocational skills, and other barrier-removal services based on individualized plans. The STEP Act would provide states with funding to implementing these programs and other training and support programs. Existing transitional job programs are achieving great outcomes. A Mathematical study released last month demonstrated that between 81 to 94 percent of those who had completed transitional job programs move on to unsubsidized jobs with wages. Most of these participants moved into full-time employment, median hours worked was 40 hours. Another survey revealed that transitional jobs program completers reported average wages at placement into unsubsidized employment between $7 and $10 per hour. Transitional jobs programs can be particularly effective with the hardest to serve welfare recipients. Transitional jobs program often focus primarily on welfare recipients who have participated in welfare employment and training programs without successfully finding steady employment. The reasons for their inability to find and sustain meaningful employment are complex and varied. For people who face barriers, or who lack the skills or experience to compete successfully in the labor market, paid work in a supportive environment, together with access to needed services provides a real chance to move forward. While more expensive than other work first strategies, transitional jobs programs are able to do what their cheaper and less intensive counterparts have not, help the most difficult to serve TANF participants find stable, permanent employment. Additional support for transitional jobs programs is needed. The TANF and Welfare-to-Work block grants have been the principal sources of funding for Transitional Jobs programs. Welfare-to-Work funds have been exhausted in many parts of the country and must be spend completely during the next year or two. In addition, with an ever growing competition for TANF funds in a period of rising caseloads and declining State revenues, it will be increasingly difficult to fund transitional jobs programs solely with TANF funds. I believe that transitional job programs are good investments because they serve as stepping stones to permanent employment and decrease government expenditures on health care, food stamps, and cash assistance. Transitional jobs programs can be particularly important in economically depressed and rural areas because they increase work opportunities for hard-to-employ individuals, they reduce pressure on local emergency systems and, they provide income that stimulates local economies. Our legislation also supports ``business link'' programs that provide individuals with fewer barriers or individuals who have only been able to access very low wage employment with intensive training and skill development activities designed to lead to long-term, higher paid employment. These programs are based on partnerships with the private sector. In my home State, just such a program is producing great results, the Teamworks program. Teamworks provides training in life skills, as well as employment skills, during a 12 week course. The program also provides necessary supports to participants such as childcare and transportation. Teamworks assists participants in their job search and provides ongoing support for 18 months after job placement. The results are impressive. The average wage of those completing the program is $1.50 per hour higher than other programs and job retention rates are 20 percent higher. This experience is not unique. Welfare programs that combine work with education and training with support services are more likely to result in work leads to self-sufficiency. The legislation that I am introducing today will give States the tools to implement what works. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting both the STEP Act and the Education Works Act. I as unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, on June 14, the church family of Grant Chapel in Albuquerque celebrates what its pastor describes as ``one hundred twenty years of God's faithfulness to Grant and to the community of Albuquerque.'' Organized in 1882 as the ``Colored Methodist Mission,'' it was founded to serve as a place of worship for African American people in New Mexico. A year later, it was one of five churches awarded a plot of land by New Mexico Township, Inc., to promote development in Albuquerque. In 1892, it became known as the Coal Avenue Methodist Church and in 1905 it was renamed Grant Chapel to honor Bishop Abram Grant of the 5th Episcopal District which included the states and territories in the West. Building and growing are very much part of Grant Chapel's history. The congregation has chosen to change sites over the years, and with each move, a new vitality has been infused into the church. Over the course of its history, some fifty ministers have served here, each building on one another's success, and contributing to its importance in the community. I am proud to add my voice in praise of the good people--past, present and future--of Grant chapel, and to wish them at least another hundred twenty years of prayerful service.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I recognize the notable work of New Mexico middle school students Elyse Burlingame, Gabrielle Sanchez, Michelle Foley-Shea, Ciara Siebuhr and Crystle Krueger on their impressive history project titled ``Margaret Sanger: Woman Rebel.'' Their project highlights the determination and important achievements of Margaret Sanger, a strong advocate for a woman's right to family planning services. The achievement of these young scholars has been recognized through the project's selection as one of the projects that will be displayed at the National Museum of American History, today, June 12, 2002. Their project was chosen out of more than half a million projects submitted by students across the nation as being an outstanding work that reflects this year's National History Day theme, ``Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History.'' Not only does the work of these students capture the story of an important figure in history, it also goes beyond the story itself and brilliantly interprets the effects Margaret Sanger had on American society in a very useful way. Their ability to go beyond their research in this way demonstrates the attributes of true scholars. Their work reflects an excellent understanding of historical context, as well as intellectual and social setting. These students also demonstrate great intellectual maturity by presenting the historical struggle of Margaret Sanger using a variety of viewpoints that allow for a better reflection of history. It is a great honor for these students, as well as for the entire state of New Mexico, to have their project displayed in the National Museum of American History in our nation's capital. I would like to congratulate Ms. Burlingame, Ms. Sanchez, Ms. Foley-Shea, Ms. Siebuhr, and Ms. Krueger on their hard work and the well deserved recognition of their project.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 19, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills addressing the recreation fee program on Federal lands: S. 2473, to enhance the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program for the National Park Service, and for other purposes; and S. 2607, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to collect recreation fees on Federal lands, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202) 224-9863.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 20, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 139 and H.R. 3928, to assist in the preservation of archaeological, paleontological, zoological, geological, and botanical artifacts through construction of a new facility for the University of Utah Museum of Natural History, Salt Lake City, Utah; S. 1609 and H.R. 1814, to amend the National Trails System Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Metacomet-Mattabesett Trail extending through western Massachusetts and central Connecticut as a national historic trail; S. 1925, to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in the States of Massachusetts and New Hampshire, and for other purposes; S. 2196, to establish the National Mormon Pioneer Heritage Area in the State of Utah, and for other purposes; S. 2388, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to study certain sites in the historic district of Beaufort, South Carolina, relating to the Reconstruction Era; S. 2519, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of Coltsville in the State of Connecticut for potential inclusion in the National Park System; and S. 2576, to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in the State of New Mexico, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses must testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202-224-9863). committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to authorize the Federal land management agencies, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, to collect visitor recreation fees, and to use the proceeds from the fees to continue to fund high priority resource protection and maintenance backlog needs. Following enactment of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in 1996, the Federal agencies have been authorized to experiment with various fee collection proposals. That program also authorized the Federal agencies, for the first time, to retain all of the fee revenues and to use those funds, without the need for further appropriation, on maintenance backlog and other funding needs. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has been extended each year, most recently through September 30, 2004. For the most part, the fee demonstration program has been very successful. However, unlike the previous fee authority in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the fee demonstration program contained no guidance to the agencies or limitations on the types of fees that could be collected. As a result, the program has generated some controversy, especially with respect to certain Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands where fees had not historically been charged. The bill I am introducing today builds upon the positive results from the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, while including new criteria to ensure that fees are not imposed inappropriately. The bill provides the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture with considerable discretion to administer the program while ensuring that recreational access to Federal lands remains available to all Americans. Most importantly, the bill maintains the existing requirement that a majority of the fees be retained for expenditure at the site where collected. I believe there is strong support for enacting permanent fee authority. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on this bill on June 19, and I hope it will be ready for consideration by the full Senate in the near future. 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 legislation to authorize the Federal land management agencies, the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service, to collect visitor recreation fees, and to use the proceeds from the fees to continue to fund high priority resource protection and maintenance backlog needs. Following enactment of the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program in 1996, the Federal agencies have been authorized to experiment with various fee collection proposals. That program also authorized the Federal agencies, for the first time, to retain all of the fee revenues and to use those funds, without the need for further appropriation, on maintenance backlog and other funding needs. The Recreation Fee Demonstration Program has been extended each year, most recently through September 30, 2004. For the most part, the fee demonstration program has been very successful. However, unlike the previous fee authority in the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act, the fee demonstration program contained no guidance to the agencies or limitations on the types of fees that could be collected. As a result, the program has generated some controversy, especially with respect to certain Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management lands where fees had not historically been charged. The bill I am introducing today builds upon the positive results from the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program, while including new criteria to ensure that fees are not imposed inappropriately. The bill provides the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture with considerable discretion to administer the program while ensuring that recreational access to Federal lands remains available to all Americans. Most importantly, the bill maintains the existing requirement that a majority of the fees be retained for expenditure at the site where collected. I believe there is strong support for enacting permanent fee authority. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing on this bill on June 19, and I hope it will be ready for consideration by the full Senate in the near future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 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 hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, June 18th, 2002, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 198, to require the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to provide assistance through States to eligible weed management entities to control or eradicate harmful, nonnative weeds on public and private land; S. 1846, to prohibit oil and gas drilling in Finger Lakes National Forest in the State of New York; S. 1879, to resolve the claims of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., to lands adjacent to the Russian River in the State of Alaska; S. 2222, to establish certain conveyances and provide for alternative land selections under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation; S. 2471, to provide for the independent investigation of Federal wildland firefighter fatalities; and S. 2483, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to grant to Deschutes and Crook Counties in the State of Oregon a right-of-way to West Butte Road. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should e- mail it to shelley__brown@energy.senate.gov or fax it to (202) 224- 4340. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, before leaving this general subject, let me talk a little about a subject on which I have focused in recent weeks, which is part of this overall corporate mismanagement problem that we have been talking about, and that is the problem of pensions. What do we do to preserve the retirement of workers in these companies that turn out to have cooked the books or to have engaged in some kind of practice that causes the value of that company to go away? There are essentially four major issues that I think need to be focused on regarding retirement security for Americans. Let me put that chart up and go through the list once more for those who are interested in this subject. There are four major areas where we need to concentrate our attention and where I believe we can legislate in a constructive fashion. First, we need to have a goal of providing some type of retirement or pension plan for all workers in our society. There is no reason why a person should work 25, 30, 35, even 40 years at a job--or a series of jobs, which is much more common in this day and time--and wind up with no pension, no income, nothing they can depend on other than Social Security once they get to retirement age. Pensions and retirement coverage have not increased as a percentage of the workforce in the last 30 years. We have recent studies that have indicated that. About 50 percent of private sector workers actually have some sort of pension plan today. That is nationwide. The statistic is 50 percent. My home State of New Mexico, unfortunately, has the worst statistic of any of the 50 States. The percentage is 70 percent have no pension plan and are not expecting to have a pension; whereas, only 30 percent of private sector employees do have some sort of pension plan. I can remember the discussions in previous years around here where we talked about a three-legged stool when it came to retirement security. We said, when a person gets to retirement, they are going to have three things to depend upon, including Social Security payments--and we all want to see those continue. They are going to have their savings, and they are going to have their pension. The reality is very different from that model or that ideal that we have described for many years. The reality is that most people who have worked through their entire careers--at least in New Mexico where 70 percent have no pension--most people do not have three legs on the ``stool'' on which they are planning to sit. They have most likely one leg because they have not been able to save a significant amount, and they don't have any sort of pension or 401(k) plan. That is the first issue and the first item on the chart. All workers need a retirement or pension plan of some sort. We can do much more to expand pension coverage to make it more attractive for employers to provide pension coverage and to make it more available to workers in our society. We need to get about the business of doing that. Second, all workers should have a right to a secure retirement savings. The problems we have seen with Enron, the problems we have seen with other corporations, where retirement savings have been essentially frittered away, or put into stock by employers which turned out not to have value, need to be fixed. There is legislation that Senator Kennedy has proposed, which has been reported out of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee that I supported. That legislation is awaiting consideration on the Senate floor. I hope very much that we can move to consider that legislation. In the Finance Committee, we are also looking at legislation which would help ensure that people who have these pension savings, or who have a 401(k) plan, can be guaranteed those funds will be there when they actually retire. We need to protect employees from conflicts of interest that allow accountants, analysts, investment advisers, and, in some cases, employers to act in their own self-interest, rather than in the best interest of the employee who is supposed to benefit from that retirement plan. Third, all workers must have pension portability. One of the problems today in our workforce and our work careers is that most people will move from job to job, and over the period of 30, 35, 40 years of work, an average worker may have 8 or 10 jobs. We need to be sure they do not lose their pension benefits as they move from job to job. We need to be sure they can take those benefits with them and that the benefits will be portable. Again, we need to change the laws to make that occur on a more ready basis. I hope very much we can move to legislation to accomplish that. The fourth item I want to mention is all workers should be treated on a comparable basis as regards to retirement benefits. We are just now trying to understand all of the various mechanisms that have been used in some of these companies to get us to a result which we have seen over and over where the top executives of a corporation, when the corporation essentially collapses as a financial matter, where the top executives walk off with tens and even hundreds of millions of dollars in deferred compensation, in executive compensation of one kind or another; whereas the workers for that same corporation may wind up with nothing in their retirement accounts. We need to find out what those abuses are. We need to find out ways to correct them. We need to plug those loopholes in the existing law, and I believe we can. Mr. President, let me stop with that. I see other colleagues are waiting to speak. I believe very strongly this issue of retirement security needs to be on the agenda of this Congress. I know Senator Daschle is trying to put together a series of proposals coming from various committees so that we can consider it before the August recess. Retirement security is one of the provisions that we would hopefully give attention to as a result of or in the wake of the Enron scandal. I hope we can do that. I think the people of the country want to see us do that. I close with the article with which I began my discussion, ``Enthusiasm Ebbs for Tough Reform in Wake of Enron.'' We need to prove that headline wrong and demonstrate that this Congress is committed to tough reform, and one of those reforms is in the area of retirement security. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, June 10, 2002] Enthusiasm Ebbs for Tough Reform in Wake of Enron (By Stephen Labaton and Richard A. Oppel, Jr.) Washington, June 9.--Six months after the collapse of Enron, a wave of enthusiasm for overhauling the nation's corporate and accounting laws has ebbed and the toughest proposals for change are all but dead. A powerful group of lobbyist, playing on partisan disagreement in Congress, appears to have killed efforts to impose tight new controls on corporate conduct. And while some Democrats hope to turn the inaction to their advantage in the fall elections, other lawmakers say that--barring more business meltdowns that deepen the stock market's two-year slump--voters are unlikely to care enough to influence their ballots. Bills imposing more stringent accounting standards, changing the tax and accounting treatment of employee stock options and setting tougher conflict-of-interest rules for stock analysts and accounting firms have all fallen victim to political gridlock. Corporate America and the stock markets have not waited for Washington. Instead, they have undertaken a host of changes in response to the problems highlighted by Enron and reinforced by corporate and accounting failures in the telecommunications, cable and energy industries. Investors have fled companies whose accounting or governance practices fail to measure up to post-Enron standards. Some Republicans say all this is evidence that the system is working without heavy-handed interference by lawmakers. Congress did much to focus attention on flaws in the nation's corporate and accounting practices with a series of investigative hearings earlier this year, the most dramatic of them conducted by committees in the Republican-led House. Even so, with the debate over Enron at full boil, the House adopted a measure in April that rejected the toughest proposed changes. Senate Democrats now predict that they will have the votes to get a broad measure of their own out of the Banking Committee later this month on a party-line vote, but only by tempering it to win the support of moderates. Senator Tom Daschle, the majority leader, is said by lawmakers and his aides to be committed to trying to move a bill to the Senate floor before the August recess, in hopes of using the Republicans' opposition to the measure against them in fall campaigns. Even if that bill survives a filibuster threatened by Senate Republicans, lawmakers and lobbyists say that there is little chance of reconciling the differences between the House and the Senate this year. All of Washington has not been paralyzed. Federal regulators--spurred in part by state prosecutors--have become more aggressive on the enforcement front. In Congress, meanwhile, legislation to modify pension laws--a response to the enormous losses in the retirement funds of employees at Enron and other troubled companies-- might have a better chance of passage. Still, even lawmakers who favor a tough response to the seeming explosion in business misconduct detect little fervor among voters for a Washington crackdown. Absent a spate of further disclosures, they say, the issues may remain too remote to change many voters' minds. ``The politics will be determined by the circumstances,'' said Senator Jon S. Corzine, Democrat of New Jersey and a former top executive of Goldman, Sachs & Company. ``If we continue to see an erosion of the stock market and more cases like Adelphia and Tyco, then it will be significant. If we see less, then it may have less of an impact, because these can become issues that are hard for people like my mom to understand.'' Other lawmakers, particularly Republicans, say Enron's moment as a galvanizing issue has quickly passed. ``The feeding frenzy is pretty much over,'' said Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, the ranking Republican on the banking committee, who has worked closely with industry lobbyists to kill many of the Democrats' proposals. ``People started looking at making all these radical changes and decided there was a real cost involved and that it would not solve the Enron problem.'' Mr. Gramm said regulators and the marketplace are already correcting the excesses exemplified by Enron and its auditor, Arthur Andersen, relieving Congress of the need to enact comprehensive legislation. ``A lot of progress has already been made,'' he said. ``The president has put forward a strong program, the Securities and Exchange Commission is moving forward, and the exchanges are changing their rules. No one who sits on an audit committee will be the same after Enron.'' Mr. Gramm's wife, Wendy, a onetime government regulator who serve on Enron's audit committee, resigned from the company's board last week. Representative Billy Tauzin, the Louisiana Republican who held hearings on Enron's collapse, agreed with Mr. Gramm's appraisal, but he said it will still vital for Congress to act, even though the prospects for legislation are not strong. ``It's all very iffy,'' he said. ``There is a huge rift between where the Senate believes these issues ought to go and what the House has already passed. I don't know if it gets worked out in time.'' Both Democrats and Republicans have already begun to consider strategies to make the best political use of the issue in the November elections. The Republicans are relying heavily on the rule-making and enforcement actions of the

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me also call the attention of my colleagues to another section in the same magazine called The Barker Portfolio. It is entitled ``A Three-Point Plan for SEC Reform.'' It is by Robert Barker, and he goes into some detail about what he believes is an appropriate set of reforms for the Securities and Exchange Commission in order that these kinds of problems can be avoided in the future. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, as noted in the article, Senator Daschle has indicated he would like to bring a bill to the Senate floor dealing with these issues before the August recess. I think that is an admirable goal, one that the entire Senate needs to join. Unfortunately, the administration and the House and some colleagues in the Senate have not shown the kind of zeal for these necessary reforms that is going to be required. I certainly hope the delays and obstacles that have arisen so far do not prevent us from bringing meaningful legislation before the Senate. Let me refer to a couple other articles while I am on the subject. I was reading these articles over the weekend in Business Week. One is an editorial in the current edition of Business Week, entitled ``Accounting: Stronger Reforms, Please.'' It is a very interesting article, one that I think deserves the attention of everyone. Let me read a couple of paragraphs from it because I think it does make a point on which all of us need to focus. It says: If you hoped that the Enron/Andersen scandal would provide an opportunity for just those sort of farsighted regulatory improvements, start worrying. There are signs that the Bush Administration, under pressure from the accounting lobby and business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, is willing to support only mild changes in the current system. And there's a danger that Congress will acquiesce. The House of Representatives has already passed a very watered-down bill. That's wrong. Halfhearted reform is bad for the public, bad for the economy, and even bad for the accounting industry, which needs to reestablish its credibility. Instead, we think the best bet for strong accounting and financial reform is the legislation proposed by Senator Paul Sarbanes, Democrat from Maryland, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Sarbanes' draft legislation--which is opposed by Senator Phil Gramm, the ranking GOP member of the Banking Committee, and the Bush Administration--would set up a strong private- sector board to oversee public-company accounting. It goes on to detail what is in the legislation and to urge that the legislation be considered and passed by the Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial from Business Week's current edition be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the front page of today's New York Times has an article with a title that reads ``Enthusiasm Ebbs for Tough Reform in Wake of Enron.'' That headline points out a political challenge that those of us in Congress have to deal with over the next few months; that is, the challenge to enact meaningful legislation while this terrible catastrophe which befell many employees and investors in relation to Enron is still fresh in mind. I, for one, am not ready to concede that we cannot take legislative action to make sure the country's workers are not protected from the next Enron-type meltdown. We need to take that legislative action. It needs to be a priority of the Congress. I rise to speak about some of the elements that legislative action ought to contain. Hardly a day goes by when we are not hearing about the collapse of another corporation. It is not just Enron. I think we have all come to recognize the problem of corporate mismanagement, the problem of questionable accounting, or actual dishonest accounting, the problem of misuse or abuse of the tax provisions early in the law. All of that is, unfortunately, more widespread than just the Enron example. These corporate misdeeds, executive malfeasance, accounting chicanery, unfortunately, provide grist for virtually every front page we see these days. These stories will not stop on their own. The problems will not go away on their own. Apparently, the system we have had in place for a long time is not working as it should. We need to pass legislation to address these recurring themes or else we will jeopardize a long-term economic recovery, which I know we are all hoping very much is in place and scheduled to occur. I have referred to a New York Times article. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, am I correct, we are in morning business at this time?

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, about 2 weeks ago I urged that the House leadership go ahead and appoint conferees for the energy bill on which we should be in conference at this point. As Senators will remember, we passed the energy bill in the Senate on April 25. The respective leaders of the two parties appointed conferees on May 1. Since then, we have not seen any action on the House side to appoint conferees so we could begin a conference with the House of Representatives on this very important bill. The House bill is in excess of 500 pages. The bill we passed in the Senate after 6 weeks of floor debate is nearly 1,000 pages in length. It will take several weeks to come to agreement on a joint proposal we can take back to the two Houses and, hopefully, to the President. The sooner we can get started, the better for everyone's point of view. It is in the country's interests that we try to resolve the differences between the House and the Senate and try to enact an energy bill this year. As long as we do not have conferees named on the House side, that makes it extremely difficult. I, again, urge the leadership on the House side to appoint their conferees. When I raised this issue last month, one of my colleagues announced he had heard that the House of Representatives was going to appoint its conferees on the first day back after the recess. Well, that would have been yesterday, and we still don't have any forward motion. I am getting ready to borrow Senator Lott's bloodhounds to go looking for the House conferees. We have an immense undertaking before us in terms of getting a balanced and comprehensive energy bill to the President's desk. The House bill is over 500 pages and the Senate bill is nearly 1000 pages. There are some similarities between the bills, but some very important differences, as well. Conferences on authorizing legislation are never easy. The bioterrorism bill, for example, took months to conference. The bankruptcy bill has been in conference for over a year. To have a successful conference on the energy bill will take a lot of careful planning on the part of the leadership on both sides in both Houses of Congress. As I mentioned before the recess, even the most elementary questions, such as who should chair the conference, seem to be in dispute, although I think that the precedents are clearly in the Senate's favor. We need to get going, and the actual naming of conferees by the House of Representatives, whenever it happens, will only be a start to a process of figuring out how the conference will be structured, whether there will be subconferences, and which issues to address first. I am anxious to start to work with whomever the House of Representatives decides will be my counterpart to initiate the organizational discussions. To be most effective with the use of our time, we may have to think about taking on the big issues first to see if there is an overall energy bill that can achieve a critical mass of support on both sides of both House and Senate. If we adopt an incremental approach of working on minor issues first, and leaving all the hard issues to the end, we may be still working on clearing the legislative underbrush in December. I hope that we can see some progress soon on starting the energy conference.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 12, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1257 and H.R. 107, to require the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a theme study to identify sites and resources to commemorate and interpret the cold war; S. 1312 and H.R. 2109, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study of Virginia Key Beach, Florida, for possible inclusion in the National Park System; S. 1944, to revise the boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park and Gunnison Gorge National Conservation Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; H.R. 38, to provide for additional lands to be included within the boundaries of the Homestead National Monument of America in the State of Nebraska, and for other purposes; H.R. 980, to establish the Moccasin Bend National Historic Site in the State of Tennessee as a unit of the National Park System; and H.R. 1712, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to make adjustments to the boundary of the National Park of American Samoa to include certain portions of the islands of Ofu and Olosega within the park, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202-224-9863).

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. The national heritage area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses, and local governments, who are coming together to preserve the area. By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a national heritage area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico. By introducing this legislation, it is my hope that we will not only honor the past, but also inspire the future. 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 to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. The national heritage area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses, and local governments, who are coming together to preserve the area. By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a national heritage area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico. By introducing this legislation, it is my hope that we will not only honor the past, but also inspire the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Briefly, what I want to do is summarize these four points. Retirement security is an issue that is of great concern to virtually all Americans. I believe there are four essential issues embedded in it which we need to begin dealing with in this Congress. There has not been much interest on the part of the administration in dealing with these issues. If there has been, I missed it. But I believe Congress needs to take the initiative to begin dealing with it. The four issues I believe deserve the greatest attention are: First of all, We need to recognize that everyone who works in this country ought to be entitled to a pension of some sort--a pension, a 401(k), some kind of provision for their retirement in addition to Social Security. I think that should be a goal to which we should all agree. Second, all workers should have a right to secure retirement savings. We should eliminate the problems of mismanagement of people's retirement savings that we saw in the case of Enron. Senator Kennedy has put together legislation we have reported out of the HELP Committee that tries to close some of those loopholes, eliminate some of those abuses, and deal with the looting of retirement savings that unfortunately has occurred and is permitted under current law. Third, all workers must have pension portability. This is a difficult issue but an important one. Most workers will have somewhere between 10 and 15 jobs during their career. That is the way of the modern economy. We need to be sure they can move their pension from job to job and not lose their pension benefits because they are forced to change jobs in midcareer. Fourth, all workers should have retirement benefits comparable to those of the highest paid executives in the company. We cannot have one set of rules for the top management and a different set of rules for the rest of the people in the employ of that corporation. We need to have comparable tax provisions so there is not a set of tax provisions that allows for the putting away of postretirement income for the top executives of the company while the average worker of the company is denied a reasonable pension. Last week I came to the floor to talk about our Nation's gap in pension and retirement plan coverage. Although Enron has been the focus of much of our attention, we cannot ignore the disturbing trend that pension coverage in our country has not budged from roughly 50 percent coverage over the past 30 years. Minorities, particularly Hispanics, fare significantly worse with 73 percent of all Hispanics in the private sector not having a retirement or pension plan. Quite simply, we must do more. In light of Enron and other corporate abuses, it is patently evident that we must strengthen our retirement and pension laws so that employees' retirement savings are given real protections. We must protect the retirement savings of our workers from unscrupulous executives who are willing to use their positions to enrich themselves at the expense of the employees. We must also be sure that employees are protected from various conflicts of interest that allow accountants, analysts, and employers to act in their own self-interest and financial well being instead of the best interests of the employees. In particular, we must be sure that we do not change the law to expose employees to new conflicts of interest, as would occur if we allowed conflicted investment advisers to invade the secure world of ERISA protected retirement plans. Of course, all of these protections don't mean much if employees do not have the ability to diversify out of employer securities so that they are not financially ruined when there is an economic downturn or their employer goes out of business. Sadly, the House-passed bill does not provide any of these protections in any meaningful way. Although we have made great strides in the past several years, we still have more to do to be sure workers with traditional pension plans are able to take their savings with them when they move on to a new job. While retirement plans are more portable than traditional pensions, we must still make sure that employees have the right to take what is theirs with them if they change employment. In these cases, plan portability is not the only issue, concerns over vesting and the ability to diversify out of employer stock are equally important. Finally, we need to ensure that executives of companies do not walk away from a business with millions in benefits when the employees are sent home with a retirement account full of worthless employer stock. It is fair that executives have more money in their retirement accounts--that is one of the benefits of being a higher salaried employee. What isn't fair, though, is when executives have millions in deferred compensation and other executive benefits that have been funded by tax-preferenced vehicles like corporate owned life insurance none of which is available to the workers. If a benefit does not meet non-discrimination rules, it is unclear to me why a company should be able to be fund these executive benefits through tax-preferred chicanery. As we move into the 21st century it is important that we take note of the state of our private retirement system and work to improve it. Too many Americans still do not have any pension or retirement coverage. That must improve. We must also strengthen our retirement system to provide employees with real protections for their retirement savings-- not symbolic changes as proposed by the House and Administration. We must provide our workers with increased pension portability and true ownership of all their retirement assets. Finally, we must change our laws so that companies are not able to take advantage of loopholes in the Tax Code that give them significant tax relief when funding executive retirement benefits that are not available to the workers. We will need much than proposed by the administration and passed by the House if we want a world where ``what's fair on the top floor should be fair on the shop floor.'' I hope my colleagues from across the aisle are ready to match legislation with their rhetoric. If not, unfortunately, this Congress will come to a close with workers once again getting the short end of the bargain. These are very important issues. When we return after this week-long recess, I hope we can put some serious effort into dealing with them. I commit to proposing some legislation to try to help move us in that direction. My time has expired, so I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Just to respond, the point my colleague makes is one he made numerous times during the debate of the energy bill here on the Senate floor. Clearly, that is his point of view. We were able to produce a bill. I think it is a far superior bill to the one the House produced last summer. The main point I am trying to make is we cannot move any further down the road toward enacting an energy bill unless we get a conference. It has been a month since the Senate passed its bill. It is time the House appointed their conferees. Madam President, let me go ahead with the second of the issues I want to deal with, and that relates to retirement security. How much time remains, Madam President?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Ten minutes would be fine.