Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I call for regular order.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, last Friday, May 17, marked the 1-year anniversary of the release of President Bush's National Energy Policy. And the day after tomorrow, May 25, will mark the one-month anniversary of the Senate's completion of its consideration of the Energy Policy Act of 2002. I believe that it is appropriate to take stock of where we were 1 year ago, where we are today, and what we need to do next to move this process forward. One year ago, when President Bush released his National Energy Policy Plan, his proposal was little more than a glossy brochure. The summary of all the recommendations in the President's Plan, which appeared as the first appendix in his report, amounted to a mere 17 pages of text. Most of these recommendations were stated in very broad terms, and only about 20 actually related to legislation. A classic example of the recommendations in the President's Plan is the following one relating to electricity reform. Here is the electricity recommendation in last year's plan, in its totality: The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct the Secretary of Energy to propose comprehensive electricity legislation that promotes competition, protects consumers, enhances reliability, promotes renewable energy, improves efficiency, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, and reforms the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act. That was it for electricity. Now those 44 words include some very good thoughts. I am sure that a lot of work went into developing them. But it wasn't something that Congress could immediately turn around and send to the President's desk for signature. So, over the last year, we have done a tremendous amount of work in Congress, and especially in the Senate, to put real flesh on the bones laid out in the President's plan. In the Senate Energy Committee, we held over 2 dozen hearings in this Congress on various aspects of energy policy, seeking to get broad and inclusive input into our bill. In the case of electricity, instead of the 44 words contained in the President's plan, the Senate developed and passed 80 pages of legislative text on electricity reform. Our provisions sought to give real meaning to the general principles of protecting consumers, promoting competition, and promoting renewable energy. We had a lot of help and input from the Administration, but the work was really done here in the Senate. We are now at the beginning of the next phase in the legislative process. That is conference with the House of Representatives. We have a lot of work to do, but it cannot begin until the leadership of the House of Representatives decides who will represent them in a conference. I have to confess that I am getting a little frustrated at the delay in moving to this next phase. When the Senate passed its bill, the House majority whip put out a press release calling this body a bunch of ``do-nothing Daschlecrats'' and stating: Now, it's important that we move quickly to work out the differences between the House and Senate bills. I agree with the second part of his comments, but his own colleagues in the House of Representatives apparently do not. Senators Daschle and Lott named our Senate conferees on May 1. After three weeks of silence from the House on who their conferees might be, it seems that all we are getting from the House is a lot of delay. And there is a tremendous amount of work to be done to have a successful energy conference, even before we sit down around a table somewhere. First, we will have to decide how the conference will be organized, including how it will be chaired. We seldom go to conference on energy bills. The last conference on an energy bill, the Alaska Power Administration Sale and Asset Transfer Act, took place 7 years ago, in 1995. The House of Representatives chaired that conference. If one accepts the notion that conference chairmanships alternate between the Houses, then that means that it is now the Senate's turn to chair an energy conference. And, judging from both the lack of forward motion from the House on naming their conferees and some of the informal comments from the House leadership on their vision of what a conference would look like, I think that there might be some important advantages to Senate chairmanship of the conference. A number of leading members of the House of Representatives seem to be of the opinion that there should be a lot of televised meetings of conferees. I have nothing against openness, but I don't think that lots of televised meetings would be conducive to actually getting an energy bill out of conference. My prime mission in chairing a conference would be getting a bill, not getting Nielsen ratings. We should regard the time that conferees are actually present in the same room as a limited resource, to be used to promote forward motion, and not grand- standing. Second, there have been rumblings that some in the House leadership might prefer to delay a conference until September. There are so many complex issues to be dealt with in this bill that delay would result in no conference report. I would prefer to see us begin work as soon as the organization of the conference itself was worked out, much along the lines of how issues were dealt with during past energy conferences. I am very much looking forward to learning whom we are supposed to be negotiating with from the House of Representatives. I'm not going to initiate discussions with the House of Representatives, though, that might be regarded as attempts to pre-conference the bill, or parts of it, prior to knowing who all the legitimate participants will be from the House. But once the House has made its selection, I would propose that the conferees from both Houses take the following three key steps. First, we should get the conference leadership from both Houses into a room to get the organization and ground rules of the conference set down as our first order of business. Second, we should have the appropriate Senate and House staffs meet to work out a mutually agreed-to side-by-side presentation of the bills, so that there is common agreement as to which proposals are similar enough to be paired up in the negotiations. For the tax provisions, the Joint Committee on Taxation has already prepared a draft side-by-side that can be reviewed by both sides. We need to get the corresponding treatment for the energy policy provisions done in a consensual manner between the two Houses. Third, we will have to decide whether there will be subconferences; and if so, how many; and what each will encompass. What I have just laid out is a substantial amount of preparatory work that is now on hold. And time is slipping away from us in this Congress. If we adjourn in early October, as is likely, then we may have only 12 or 13 weeks of session left in this Congress. That is less time than one might think, and there will be a lot of other issues that will occupy the time and attention of leading members of this conference. I hope we can get started with the critical organizational phase of the discussions as soon as possible. But there is no way that can happen, without knowing who the conferees from the House will be. I urge my colleagues in the other body to give this high priority so that the real work can begin.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation entitled the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Department Fair Payment Act of 2002'' to improve Medicare payments for hospital outpatient department services. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, in its report to Congress this past March. ``We estimate that the aggregate Medicare margin for outpatient services will be -16.3 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, while the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system, or OPPS, was created to give providers incentives to deliver quality outpatient care and services in an efficient manner, OPPS reimbursement rates have been set at a level substantially below what is costs hospitals to care for Medicare patients. That is an unsustainable burden for our Nation's hospitals. This problem is especially acute in rural areas. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's June 2001 report entitled ``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' outpatient costs represent 21.8 percent of total Medicare costs in rural hospitals compared to 16.1 percent in urban hospitals. As MedPAC concludes, ``Given their greater reliance on Medicare and on outpatient services within Medicare, rural hospitals have more at stake than their urban counterparts in the move to the outpatient PPS.'' In addition, Medicare's payment policy of paying less than cost creates inappropriate incentives for providers to provide services in the setting that receives the most favorable payment rather than the one best suited for the patient. Medicare policy should seek, as best as possible, to pay appropriate amounts to ensure access to care for Medicare beneficiaries in appropriate settings, whether in inpatient hospitals, outpatient care, ambulatory surgical centers, or physician offices. To provide just one example, the following are the current payment rates for mammography in either a outpatient hospital setting of a physician's office: for unilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is $30.54 compared to $38.01 in a physician's office; for bilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is again $30.54 compared to an even higher $46.06 in a physician's office; for unilateral digital mammography, OPPS payment just increased to $75.00 compared to $71.31 in a physician's office; and finally, for bilateral digital mammography, the OPPS payment is $75.00 compared to $88.33 in a physician's office. Why does Medicare pay between 24 percent to 54 percent more for a diagnostic mammography in a physician's office than in an outpatient hospital setting? Such disparities are unjustified and they are even worse for other Medicare services. To address these problems, the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002'' would: increase extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, or APC, payment rates in the OPPS system by 10 percent and require an increase in overall outpatient department payments to be adjusted to 90 percent of overall costs, from the current 84 percent; and improve and extend transitional corridor or ``hold harmless'' payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extend the transitional payments to designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. The first provision would increase funding overall through the outpatient hospital system from 84 percent of cost to 90 percent of cost, still 10 percent less than the hospitals spend in delivering necessary outpatient care, with special focus and priority on payments for emergency room and clinic payments, prevention services, cancer services, and to reduce the disparity between payments in outpatient and alternative settings. The extension of the transitional corridors or hold harmless payments to rural, cancer, and children's hospitals addresses the particular problems those hospitals are facing with the OPPS system and adds designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. With regard to rural hospitals, MedPAC recommended that due to the higher unit costs and a greater percentage of care delivered in rural outpatient settings in its June 2001 report entitled ``Report to the Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' that the data ``supports the need for the existing hold-harmless policy'' for rural hospitals. Without the transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, rural hospitals would be expected to be significant losers, according to MedPAC data. As MedPAC states, ``Small rural hospitals were protected to more negatively affected, with those under 50 beds, about 50 percent of rural hospitals, losing 8.5 percent and those with 50-99 beds losing 2.7 percent.'' Even with the transitional corridor and hold-harmless payments, rural hospitals are still projected to have negative margins of 13.7 percent with respect to outpatient care. The legislation also addresses problems created by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, or BBRA, which established temporary additional Medicare payments, or transitional pass-through payments, for certain innovative medical devices, drugs, and biologics. By establishing the pass-through payments, Congress ensured Medicare beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, is required by law to make a proportional reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In March 2002, CMS announced a reduction in pass-through payments of 63.6 percent. This reduction means that a pass-through payment of $1,000 is reduced to just $364. Again, hospitals cannot continue to provide needed services to beneficiaries with reductions of such a magnitude. To prevent an event greater reduction in pass-through payments, CMS ``folded-in'' a significant portion of costs of these new technologies into the base APCs. However, because the law requires that these changes are made in a budget-neutral manner, this resulted in a substantial reduction in payments for standard outpatient services that do not rely upon high-tech medical devices. In 2002, incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-neutrality adjustment of -7.2 percent, causing the substantial reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts. As MedPAC notes, ``If pass-through items are overused and overpaid, APCs that include these technologies will be relatively overpaid while APCs that do not will be underpaid. This process also will have inappropriate distributional effects among hospitals if some hospitals provide more services that use pass-through technologies than others.'' For example, rural hospitals tend to provide a greater proportion of more basic Services, emergency care services, and fewer services that require advanced technology, according to MedPAC. These are the services particularly hard hit by the budget neutrality provision, and yet, they are certainly not any less expensive than they were last year. To address these problems with Medicare's pass-through payment system, the bill would: limit the pro-rata reduction in pass-through to 20 percent; and limit the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent annually. For New Mexico, the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. In 2000, New Mexico had over 3.1 million outpatient visits by Medicare beneficiaries for important health concerns. This includes essential services such as diagnostic tests, clinic visits, emergency care treatment, chemotherapy, and surgery. In addition, according to estimates from the American Hospital Association, the impact of this legislation to New Mexico hospitals would be an increase in Medicare payments between $48 and $59 million over the next five years. For an industry attemtping to survive cuts to payments from the private sector, Medicare and Medicaid, while also dealing with the Nation's highest percentage of uninsured patients in the country. This legislation is both timely and necessary. It is unjustifiable for Medicare to continue to pay just 84 percent of the cost of care of Medicare beneficiaries. The bottom line is that this bipartisan legislation will ensure our nation's hospitals a more rationale, fair, and equitable payment system for services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries in an outpatient setting. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill and a copy of a letter to support from AHA to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Education Works Act. In 1996, legislation was passed which made major changes to our welfare laws. Since then, we know that the welfare rolls in most States have dramatically decreased. But reforming welfare is not just about reducing welfare rolls; welfare reform must ultimately be about helping poor individuals achieve self-sufficiency. While many have left welfare for work during the past several years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work history, have health problems, are in abusive relationships, or are dealing with other circumstances that make it difficult to work. In addition, those who have secured work are working at low wages with limited benefits. These parents experience little earning growth over time, because there are limited opportunities for mobility for those with low skill levels. 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 Education Works Act will do just that. We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that have focused on employment but made substantial use of education and training, together with job search and other employment services. In addition, studies find that helping low-income parents increase their skills pays off in the labor market, particularly through participation in vocational training and postsecondary education and training. Yet, less than one percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education and training in 2000 and only five percent of TANF recipients participated in these activities in the same year. This is due in large part to the fact that the '96 law discouraged States from allowing welfare recipients to participate in education and training programs. Specifically, the law limits the extent to which education activities count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can participate in training and capping how many individuals can receive these services. The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that States have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education programs by TANF recipients as part of the TANF work requirements; giving States the flexibility to determine how long each participant may participate in education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving States the flexibility to provide childcare and transportation supports, but not cash benefits, to parents and not toll the 5 year time limit for these individuals if they are participating in a full-time education program that will lead to work and long-term independence; and eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their work requirements These are not radical changes. They do not discourage work, but rather enable it. It is important to note that of the 21 States that have operated under TANF waivers since 1996, 18 of them had waivers of the requirements we are talking about here. Delaware, Indiana, Montana, Tennesee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Oregon to name a few. The other 32 States should be given the same flexibility. In my home State, we have recognized the important role that education and training, including postsecondary education, can play in helping some welfare recipients to improve their skills so that they can get off welfare and stay off welfare. In our State, we already have an ``Education Works'' program in place. But this program is limited to only 400 participants statewide, because the limitations in the TANF program make it impossible to use Federal TANF funds to implement it. This just doesn't make sense to me. We should give states the flexibility they need to implement the types of programs that they believe work best. We should hold them accountable for decreasing caseloads over time and, more importantly, demonstrating that those leaving welfare are economically self- sufficient, but we should let them decide how to reach those goals. The Education Works Act would allow them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. 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 the Education Works Act. In 1996, legislation was passed which made major changes to our welfare laws. Since then, we know that the welfare rolls in most States have dramatically decreased. But reforming welfare is not just about reducing welfare rolls; welfare reform must ultimately be about helping poor individuals achieve self-sufficiency. While many have left welfare for work during the past several years, too many have been left behind because they don't have a high school degree, have little or no work history, have health problems, are in abusive relationships, or are dealing with other circumstances that make it difficult to work. In addition, those who have secured work are working at low wages with limited benefits. These parents experience little earning growth over time, because there are limited opportunities for mobility for those with low skill levels. 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 Education Works Act will do just that. We know that the welfare programs that have been most successful in helping parents work and earn more over the long run are those that have focused on employment but made substantial use of education and training, together with job search and other employment services. In addition, studies find that helping low-income parents increase their skills pays off in the labor market, particularly through participation in vocational training and postsecondary education and training. Yet, less than one percent of Federal TANF funds were spent on education and training in 2000 and only five percent of TANF recipients participated in these activities in the same year. This is due in large part to the fact that the '96 law discouraged States from allowing welfare recipients to participate in education and training programs. Specifically, the law limits the extent to which education activities count toward Federal work participation requirements, effectively restricting how long individuals can participate in training and capping how many individuals can receive these services. The Education Works Act would change this by: clarifying that States have the flexibility to allow participation in postsecondary, vocational English as a Second Language, and basic adult education programs by TANF recipients as part of the TANF work requirements; giving States the flexibility to determine how long each participant may participate in education and training activities while receiving benefits; giving States the flexibility to provide childcare and transportation supports, but not cash benefits, to parents and not toll the 5 year time limit for these individuals if they are participating in a full-time education program that will lead to work and long-term independence; and eliminating the 30 percent cap on the number of TANF recipients that can participate in education and training programs in fulfillment of their work requirements These are not radical changes. They do not discourage work, but rather enable it. It is important to note that of the 21 States that have operated under TANF waivers since 1996, 18 of them had waivers of the requirements we are talking about here. Delaware, Indiana, Montana, Tennesee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Oregon to name a few. The other 32 States should be given the same flexibility. In my home State, we have recognized the important role that education and training, including postsecondary education, can play in helping some welfare recipients to improve their skills so that they can get off welfare and stay off welfare. In our State, we already have an ``Education Works'' program in place. But this program is limited to only 400 participants statewide, because the limitations in the TANF program make it impossible to use Federal TANF funds to implement it. This just doesn't make sense to me. We should give states the flexibility they need to implement the types of programs that they believe work best. We should hold them accountable for decreasing caseloads over time and, more importantly, demonstrating that those leaving welfare are economically self- sufficient, but we should let them decide how to reach those goals. The Education Works Act would allow them to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Snowe to introduce legislation entitled the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Department Fair Payment Act of 2002'' to improve Medicare payments for hospital outpatient department services. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, or MedPAC, in its report to Congress this past March. ``We estimate that the aggregate Medicare margin for outpatient services will be -16.3 percent in 2002. Unfortunately, while the Medicare outpatient prospective payment system, or OPPS, was created to give providers incentives to deliver quality outpatient care and services in an efficient manner, OPPS reimbursement rates have been set at a level substantially below what is costs hospitals to care for Medicare patients. That is an unsustainable burden for our Nation's hospitals. This problem is especially acute in rural areas. According to the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission's June 2001 report entitled ``Report to Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' outpatient costs represent 21.8 percent of total Medicare costs in rural hospitals compared to 16.1 percent in urban hospitals. As MedPAC concludes, ``Given their greater reliance on Medicare and on outpatient services within Medicare, rural hospitals have more at stake than their urban counterparts in the move to the outpatient PPS.'' In addition, Medicare's payment policy of paying less than cost creates inappropriate incentives for providers to provide services in the setting that receives the most favorable payment rather than the one best suited for the patient. Medicare policy should seek, as best as possible, to pay appropriate amounts to ensure access to care for Medicare beneficiaries in appropriate settings, whether in inpatient hospitals, outpatient care, ambulatory surgical centers, or physician offices. To provide just one example, the following are the current payment rates for mammography in either a outpatient hospital setting of a physician's office: for unilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is $30.54 compared to $38.01 in a physician's office; for bilateral diagnostic mammography, the OPPS payment is again $30.54 compared to an even higher $46.06 in a physician's office; for unilateral digital mammography, OPPS payment just increased to $75.00 compared to $71.31 in a physician's office; and finally, for bilateral digital mammography, the OPPS payment is $75.00 compared to $88.33 in a physician's office. Why does Medicare pay between 24 percent to 54 percent more for a diagnostic mammography in a physician's office than in an outpatient hospital setting? Such disparities are unjustified and they are even worse for other Medicare services. To address these problems, the ``Medicare Hospital Outpatient Fair Payment Act of 2002'' would: increase extremely underfunded emergency room and clinic ambulatory payment classifications, or APC, payment rates in the OPPS system by 10 percent and require an increase in overall outpatient department payments to be adjusted to 90 percent of overall costs, from the current 84 percent; and improve and extend transitional corridor or ``hold harmless'' payments to rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals, and extend the transitional payments to designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. The first provision would increase funding overall through the outpatient hospital system from 84 percent of cost to 90 percent of cost, still 10 percent less than the hospitals spend in delivering necessary outpatient care, with special focus and priority on payments for emergency room and clinic payments, prevention services, cancer services, and to reduce the disparity between payments in outpatient and alternative settings. The extension of the transitional corridors or hold harmless payments to rural, cancer, and children's hospitals addresses the particular problems those hospitals are facing with the OPPS system and adds designated eye and ear speciality hospitals. With regard to rural hospitals, MedPAC recommended that due to the higher unit costs and a greater percentage of care delivered in rural outpatient settings in its June 2001 report entitled ``Report to the Congress: Medicare in Rural America,'' that the data ``supports the need for the existing hold-harmless policy'' for rural hospitals. Without the transitional corridor payments to rural hospitals, rural hospitals would be expected to be significant losers, according to MedPAC data. As MedPAC states, ``Small rural hospitals were protected to more negatively affected, with those under 50 beds, about 50 percent of rural hospitals, losing 8.5 percent and those with 50-99 beds losing 2.7 percent.'' Even with the transitional corridor and hold-harmless payments, rural hospitals are still projected to have negative margins of 13.7 percent with respect to outpatient care. The legislation also addresses problems created by the Balanced Budget Refinement Act of 1999, or BBRA, which established temporary additional Medicare payments, or transitional pass-through payments, for certain innovative medical devices, drugs, and biologics. By establishing the pass-through payments, Congress ensured Medicare beneficiaries would have access to the latest medical technologies. These pass-through payments were capped at 2.5 percent of total outpatient payments prior to 2004, and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, is required by law to make a proportional reduction for all pass-through payments if that cap is exceeded. In March 2002, CMS announced a reduction in pass-through payments of 63.6 percent. This reduction means that a pass-through payment of $1,000 is reduced to just $364. Again, hospitals cannot continue to provide needed services to beneficiaries with reductions of such a magnitude. To prevent an event greater reduction in pass-through payments, CMS ``folded-in'' a significant portion of costs of these new technologies into the base APCs. However, because the law requires that these changes are made in a budget-neutral manner, this resulted in a substantial reduction in payments for standard outpatient services that do not rely upon high-tech medical devices. In 2002, incorporating 75 percent of device costs into the APCs led to a budget-neutrality adjustment of -7.2 percent, causing the substantial reduction in the OPPS fee schedule amounts. As MedPAC notes, ``If pass-through items are overused and overpaid, APCs that include these technologies will be relatively overpaid while APCs that do not will be underpaid. This process also will have inappropriate distributional effects among hospitals if some hospitals provide more services that use pass-through technologies than others.'' For example, rural hospitals tend to provide a greater proportion of more basic Services, emergency care services, and fewer services that require advanced technology, according to MedPAC. These are the services particularly hard hit by the budget neutrality provision, and yet, they are certainly not any less expensive than they were last year. To address these problems with Medicare's pass-through payment system, the bill would: limit the pro-rata reduction in pass-through to 20 percent; and limit the budget neutrality adjustment to no more than 2.0 percent annually. For New Mexico, the importance of this legislation cannot be overstated. In 2000, New Mexico had over 3.1 million outpatient visits by Medicare beneficiaries for important health concerns. This includes essential services such as diagnostic tests, clinic visits, emergency care treatment, chemotherapy, and surgery. In addition, according to estimates from the American Hospital Association, the impact of this legislation to New Mexico hospitals would be an increase in Medicare payments between $48 and $59 million over the next five years. For an industry attemtping to survive cuts to payments from the private sector, Medicare and Medicaid, while also dealing with the Nation's highest percentage of uninsured patients in the country. This legislation is both timely and necessary. It is unjustifiable for Medicare to continue to pay just 84 percent of the cost of care of Medicare beneficiaries. The bottom line is that this bipartisan legislation will ensure our nation's hospitals a more rationale, fair, and equitable payment system for services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries in an outpatient setting. I ask unanimous consent for the text of the bill and a copy of a letter to support from AHA to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the life of Steven Patrick Lovato, an Emergency Medical Technician who was killed in the line of duty while responding to a 911 call on March 16, 2002 in his hometown of Roswell, NM. Steve received his initial EMT training in Las Cruces, NM and then joined the American Medical Response team in Roswell in 1998. During the course of his service in Roswell, he was a company safety officer and driving instructor. Last year he was awarded AMR's Vision and Guiding Principles Award for his responsiveness to patients. He was also recently selected as a company mentor to help teach and develop other EMT's. Steve was known for his passion for emergency medicine and his unselfish desire to help others. He often commented about how much he loved going to work and serving his community. Steve is survived by his wife Josephine, his ten-year-old son Alex, and his parents, Lawrence and Rosie Lovato, all of Roswell. I would like to extend my condolences to Steve's family. Steve's sacrifice is the ultimate sacrifice, and his family's as well, and we join with them in mourning his death.

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 Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 6, 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. 1310, to provide for the sale of certain real property in the Newlands Project, Nevada, to the City of Fallon, Nevada; S. 2475, to amend the Central Utah Project Completion Act to clarify the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior with respect to the Central Utah Project, to redirect unexpended budget authority for the Central Utah Project for wastewater treatment and reuse and other purposes, to provide for prepayment of repayment contracts for municipal and industrial water delivery facilities, and to eliminate a deadline for such prepayment; S. 1385, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to the provisions of the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act, to participate in the design, planning, and water construction of the Lakehaven water reclamation project for the reclamation and reuse of water, S. 1824/H.R. 2828, to authorize payments to certain Klamath Project water distribution entities for amounts assessed by the entities for operation and maintenance of the Project's irrigation works for 2001, to authorize funds to such entities of amounts collected by the Bureau of Reclamation for reserved works for 2001, and for other purposes; S. 1883, to authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the rehabilitation of the Wallowa Lake Dam in Oregon, and for other purposes; S. 1999, to re-authorize the Mni Wiconi Rural Water Supply Project; and H.R. 706, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain properties in the vicinity of the Elephant Butte Reservoir and the Caballo Reservoir, NM. 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 Patty Beneke or Mike Connor of the committee staff at (202-224-5451) or (202-224-5479).

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a field hearing in Bloomfield, NM to identify issues related to the inspection and enforcement of Bureau of Land Management oil and gas wells in the Farmington area and attempts to remedy computer problems affecting Minerals Management Service payments in New Mexico. The hearing will take place on Friday, May 31, at 9:00 a.m. at the Bloomfield Cultural Complex at 333 S. First Street, Bloomfield, NM. Those wishing to submit written statements on the subject matter of this hearing should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call John Watts at 202/224-5488. committee on indian affairs

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 on Wednesday, May 29, beginning at 11 a.m. at the Deschutes County Fairgrounds, located at 3800 SW Airport Way in Redmond, Oregon. The purpose of the hearing is to explore the relationship between how public lands are managed and the impact on rural economies, review the environmental health of national forests, evaluate economic assistance to natural resource-dependent communities, and assess the implementation of the Steens Mountain Act (Public Law 106-399). Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should bring it to the hearing 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, I rise today to speak in strong support of the trade adjustment assistance legislation. I will keep my comments short and to the point. I want to begin by emphasizing the positive. From what I have heard on the floor over the last couple of weeks there is a substantial majority of Senators in the Senate that believe a strong and expanded trade adjustment assistance is essential for our country. They understand it is a fair and appropriate approach for those Americans who lose their jobs as a result of trade. They understand that these Americans are not looking for hand-outs. They are looking for a chance to provide for their families and contribute to our country's economic welfare. This program offers them a chance to do just that. I find the increasing consensus on Trade adjustment assistance to be encouraging. But I have also heard some tough criticism of trade adjustment assistance lately, and since this is a bill that I introduced, I feel compelled to respond to it. There are two points that have been repeated by opponents of trade adjustment assistance. The first is that it should not be tied to fast- track legislation. I strongly disagree. In fact, I think the two bills complement each other. Passing fast-track suggests that the U.S. government supports a multilateral trading system because it provides long-term advantages for the United States and its people. Passing trade adjustment assistance suggests that the U.S. government recognizes that its trade policies have short-term costs for Americans. Taken together, the bills suggest that we have a real strategy on trade policy, one that shows we are committed to expanding the international trading system, but equally committed to the American people. I have said this before and I want to say it again because it matters: Contrary to the assertions of some of my colleagues, we cannot measure the success of our trade policy only by the cost of the products we buy. We also have to look at whether or not our trade policies make Americans more economically secure. By this I mean whether they have a high-wage job, whether they can buy a home, whether they can afford an education for their children, and whether they have retirement security. Without these things, we are poor by any measure. The second criticism is that the trade adjustment assistance program is too expansive. I disagree. I believe that the program offers only the basics for people who are trying desperately to make ends meet. $1000 or so a month in unemployment insurance is not going to make anyone rich. It certainly does not make them complacent, as some of my colleagues have suggested. Giving someone funds so they can get training, and the support services they need to get training, and the health care they need to get through hard times, is hardly unreasonable. It is common sense, and it's the least we can do for our neighbors and friends back home. For some of my colleagues to suggest that workers would want to lose their job just to take advantage of the trade adjustment assistance program is troubling. To suggest that individuals actually use the trade adjustment assistance program to ``step backwards'' into other, lesser jobs impugns their integrity, honesty, and effort. I ask my colleagues to keep in mind that the people on trade adjustment assistance did not ask to be dislocated. U.S. trade policy did that. Contrary to what some of my colleagues have said, the trade adjustment assistance bill does not distort the market. It does allow us to correct for market failure, and helps Americans hurt by trade to get back on their feet again. Some of the comments about trade adjustment assistance imply that the legislation was created without any discussion with experts about what the benefits of specific parts of the program might be. The comments are incorrect and misleading. These comments also minimize the suffering of real people in real communities across my state and the United States. At this stage of the game, it is important for my colleagues to remember that the core components of S. 1209--coverage for secondary workers and workers injured by shifts in production, the extension of benefits and allowances, health care and support service coverage, wage insurance, and TAA for communities--were derived from the needs of people I have spoken to who have been hurt by trade. These were people across my state, from Albuquerque, to Questa, to Las Cruces, to Roswell, to Silver City. These elements of the bill were reinforced by objective analyses from the Department of Labor, the General Accounting Office, the Trade Deficit Review Commission, and other groups and organizations. When I drafted the bill, it was not my intent to push a partisan agenda. It was my intent to help the people in my state and across the country that needed to be helped. This bill does that in a modest way. It is time to move forward and do what has to be done to get trade adjustment assistance legislation passed. There is too much at stake for American workers and communities to wait any longer. The program expired last September, and it is time to get trade adjustment assistance to those that need it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Murkowski, Torricelli, Harkin, Clinton, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2002'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in health professions shortage areas, HPSA. In my own State the flight of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and specialty services alike. In many areas the shortages of specialists exceeds that of primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care. With only 170 physicians per 100,000 people, New Mexico ranks well behind the national average with regard to primary care and specialist physicians. The physician shortage problem is further compounded by the disproportionate decline in physicians from rural and underserved areas. New Mexico, like many States, has a growing proportion of its rural population becoming older and sicker. According to the latest census, over 20 million of our citizens live in physician shortage areas. Lack of adequate reimbursement, in the face of increasing costs, is a critical factor leading to the shortage of physician services in HPSAs. Physicians flee rural and shortage areas for many reasons including inadequate reimbursement, family hardships and quality-of-life issues. Although it is beyond our scope to address all these issues, we can fix the reimbursement component. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services. Unfortunately the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million because of a series of disincentives in the legislation. The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that NIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for accepting these payments. Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent. The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2002 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier; eliminating automatic provider audits; directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare incentive payment program educational program for providers; establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs' ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries access to physician services; continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in health provider shortage areas. Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources, and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced. The automatic audits triggered by this program, costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated. While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS, to perform, as ongoing analysis, whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries access to physician services. I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care. The following organizations have expressed their support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Geriatrics Society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, letters of support, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Thomas, Murkowski, Torricelli, Harkin, Clinton, and Johnson entitled ``The Medicare Incentive Payment Program Improvement Act of 2002'' is designed to improve the flow of needed bonus payments to physicians serving Medicare patients in health professions shortage areas, HPSA. In my own State the flight of physicians from underserved areas has affected both primary care and specialty services alike. In many areas the shortages of specialists exceeds that of primary care physicians. The New Mexico Health Policy Commission reported in its year 2000 report that 22 percent of residents in Los Alamos and Santa Fe were unable to receive needed specialist care. With only 170 physicians per 100,000 people, New Mexico ranks well behind the national average with regard to primary care and specialist physicians. The physician shortage problem is further compounded by the disproportionate decline in physicians from rural and underserved areas. New Mexico, like many States, has a growing proportion of its rural population becoming older and sicker. According to the latest census, over 20 million of our citizens live in physician shortage areas. Lack of adequate reimbursement, in the face of increasing costs, is a critical factor leading to the shortage of physician services in HPSAs. Physicians flee rural and shortage areas for many reasons including inadequate reimbursement, family hardships and quality-of-life issues. Although it is beyond our scope to address all these issues, we can fix the reimbursement component. The Medicare Incentive Payment Program, MIPP, created by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987, was meant to assist physicians in defraying the higher costs and burdens of serving Medicare patients in shortage areas. These 10 percent ``bonuses'' are an essential component in our ongoing effort to ensure Medicare beneficiaries access to medical services. Unfortunately the Medicare Incentive Payment Program has fared poorly, with few providers choosing to receive the payments. In fact, the total annual physician payments have never exceeded $100 million because of a series of disincentives in the legislation. The program requires a provider to do a number of things to obtain the bonus payments. First, providers must be aware that NIPP payments are available to them. Many providers are unaware of the program's existence. Next, physicians must find out if the patient's medical care occurred in a shortage area. Following this a unique code must be attached to the Medicare claim, which is then forwarded to the carrier. Finally, after all these steps, providers are subjected to automatic Medicare audits, just for accepting these payments. Providers committed to serving Medicare patients in underserved areas deserve the support assured by the original legislation's intent. The Medicare Incentive Payment Improvement Act of 2002 addresses and improves shortcomings in the original legislation by: placing the burden for determining the bonus eligibility on the Medicare carrier; eliminating automatic provider audits; directing the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services to establish a Medicare incentive payment program educational program for providers; establishing an ongoing analysis of the programs' ability to improve Medicare beneficiaries access to physician services; continue to provide the original 10 percent add-on bonus for Part B physician payments in health provider shortage areas. Medicare carriers are the logical arbiters to determine whether physician services occurred in a shortage area. Physicians, already overworked, lack sufficient time, resources, and training to research and determine whether a service was provided in a HPSA. By placing the responsibility on carriers, with their sophisticated information systems, the physician's administrative burdens will be reduced. The automatic audits triggered by this program, costly, time intensive, and unwarranted, will be lifted under our legislation. By placing the responsibility on carriers to determine payment eligibility the need for provider audits is eliminated. While the MIPP program is intended to improve beneficiaries' access to physician services, there is no measure of the program's effect on physician availability. The legislation offered today directs CMS, to perform, as ongoing analysis, whether these payments actually do improve beneficiaries access to physician services. I believe these improvements, in addition to others listed above, will greatly improve patient's access to care. The following organizations have expressed their support for this legislation: American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine, the American Academy of Family Physicians and the American Geriatrics Society. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, letters of support, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to inform my colleagues and the public of a hearing postponement. The committee hearing originally scheduled for Tuesday, May 14, at 9:30 a.m. in SH-216 concerning S.J. Res. 34, a joint resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, NV, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, will be held on Wednesday, May 22, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-106. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler 202/224-7571 of the committee staff.

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 Saturday, May 18, beginning at 10 a.m. at the Forest Service Region 2 auditorium, located at 740 Simms St. in Golden, CO. The purpose of the hearing is to assess the Federal, local, and State coordination with respect to the National Fire Plan and review the existing Federal fire-related partnership programs to enhance cooperation and efficiencies with non-Federal entities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. 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, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have come to the Chamber today to speak about a subject that is of great importance to the people of my State, and I think people throughout the country, and that is the issue of retirement security. We give a lot of speeches in the Senate about security: national security, homeland security--a variety of securities. We are concerned about security. The American people are concerned about security. But there is one aspect of security that has not gotten a whole lot of attention so far in this Congress, and I am here today to call attention to it. That aspect of security is retirement security. The collapse of Enron and the resulting collapse of the retirement plans of many Enron workers and plans across the country that held substantial amounts of Enron stock have underscored the need for changes in our pension laws and our retirement plan laws. Frankly, I am disappointed that the House, in passing a watered-down version of the administration's modest proposals, has failed to increase retirement safety for those American workers who do have pensions, since that is all on which that bill really focuses. The one proposal they should have watered down--that was the ``conflicted adviser'' provision in that bill--was left intact. It has the effect of removing one of the few protections in current law against conflicts of interest by financial service companies. I am hoping the Senate will follow the lead of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and also the Finance Committee and their respective chairs and provide a more meaningful piece of legislation drafted to protect the rights of workers instead of exposing them to greater risks. So that is an issue that has been brought to national attention because of the collapse of Enron. At the same time I refer to that, let me say that an even more troubling trend is the fact that we have heard nothing from the administration and, really, in either House of Congress about the lack of pension coverage of any kind for large segments of our working population--both the lack of coverage and the substantial reduction in retirement wealth for most of the workers in this country. Approximately 2 weeks ago, Dr. Edward Wolff of the Economic Policy Institute--he is a professor at New York University--presented his report entitled ``Retirement Insecurity: The Income Shortfalls Awaiting the Soon-to-Retire.'' I would like to take a few minutes to highlight some of the points that were made in that report. I believe it makes the case, in a very compelling way, of the need for more attention to this issue for everyday workers. The report and the most recent Department of Labor statistics demonstrate that retirement plan coverage has not increased in the past 30 years despite all of the efforts to expand coverage. Let me show a chart I have to make the case. This shows the retirement plan coverage rates for full-time, private sector workers. You can see this covers the period 1972 to 1999. When you look at all workers, you see the retirement plan coverage rate for all workers in 1972 was 48 percent; in 1999--nearly 30 years later, 27 years later--it was 51 percent. So there has been a very modest increase, but modest indeed. When you look at the figures for male workers, you see there has been an actual decline in the coverage rates for full-time, private sector male employees during that period, 1972 to 1999. Mr. President, 54 percent of male workers had pensions of some type. When I say ``pensions,'' I include in that 401(k) plan participation; they had some kind of a plan where they were putting away money for retirement. It was 54 percent in 1972; 52 percent in 1999. The percentage for women has improved because they were at 38 percent in 1972 and they are now at 49 percent. But it is substantially below where it ought to be. That means roughly half of America's private sector employees will have to enjoy their retirement on the other two legs of the proverbial three-legged stool. Some who are listening may not be aware of this metaphor, but the three-legged stool is what people who focus on retirement circumstances are always referring to. They say: You have three legs you can depend upon for your retirement income; one is Social Security, the second is your savings, and the third is your pension. What these statistics show is that one of those so-called legs that a person can depend upon in this so-called three-legged stool, the pension part, is not there for half of the workers in this country. In truth, my guess is that many private sector workers who do not have a pension or retirement plan probably do not have a second leg on that stool either because they do not have any significant savings. So they are essentially left with Social Security as their only real source of support after their retirement. For minorities, the prospects are even dimmer. Unfortunately, the coverage for minorities is unacceptably low; it has been for a long time and continues. This chart makes the point for different groups of employees. For all workers in 1999, the percentage of private wage and salaried workers covered under their employer's pension plan was 44 percent. When you go down to Black, non-Hispanic workers, it was 41 percent; Asian and Pacific Islanders, non-Hispanic, 38 percent; others, minorities, non-Hispanic, 35 percent; and Hispanic workers, 27 percent. That last figure is important to me because 40 percent of the people in my State are Hispanic. This statistic indicates that only 27 percent of the private sector employees who are Hispanic in this country actually have a pension on which they can rely. There has been an interesting shift I will point out. This comes out of Dr. Wolff's report. There has been a shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. Let me explain what that is. A defined benefit plan essentially guarantees that when the worker retires, they will receive a specific amount, a defined benefit, regardless of what has happened to the economy or to the investment, the retirement funds, or anything else in the interim while they were working. In 1975, when you looked at all of these various pensions people had in the private sector, 71 percent of them were defined benefit plans and only 29 percent were defined contribution. Defined contribution, of course, means the risk is much more on the employee. It does not guarantee you any particular payment on a monthly basis or a yearly basis once you retire. It says you put in a specified amount each month while you are working, and then at the end of your work time, we look to see what the investment of those funds has added up to and how much there is for you to actually get in the way of retirement. So there is much less risk on the employer, much more risk on the employee in a defined contribution plan. The interesting thing about this chart is the defined benefit plans used to represent 71 percent of all pension plans; now they are 35 percent. The defined contribution plans used to represent 29 percent; they are now 65 percent. So there has been a dramatic shift away from defined benefits to defined contributions. When this trend started, the case was made by those who advocated it that this was going to allow much greater expansion of pension coverage; we were going to be able to cover a great many more workers if we shifted to a defined contribution plan instead of a defined benefit plan. So we did. We had a dramatic shift from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. Unfortunately, there has not been any increase in the percentage of workers covered, as that earlier chart made the case very clearly. One of the reasons many of these companies shifted to defined contribution plans is that the employee makes the majority of the contributions to the plan when it is defined contribution--not the employer but the employee. As I indicated before, the risk is shifted to the employee. The risk of the funds not being well invested and the investments not turning out well shifts to the employee rather than the employer. Clearly, half of our private sector employees did not get any benefit out of this bargain because they don't have a pension of any kind from the start. As I am about to explain, it does not appear that a majority of the covered workers got much out of this either. Let me put up a few more charts that are interesting. One which is hard to read is a chart that shows, State by State, the pension coverage we have in the private sector around the country. This is a chart that got my attention. You cannot read it from any distance, I am sure, but you can see that in Washington State, 45 percent of private sector workers have pension coverage. It is substantially better in some other States. In Vermont--the Presiding Officer has an interest in Vermont--40 percent of the private sector employees have some kind of pension. That means either some kind of defined contribution or defined benefit plan. They may have a 401(k). That would be in that 40 percent. The reason this chart catches my attention is that if you go over this chart and look at all of the percentages, the State with the lowest percent is New Mexico. Twenty-nine percent of the private sector employees in my State actually have some kind of pension. I have a chart I also want to put up for the attention of various Senators. It shows the percentage of private sector workers without pension coverage. It shows about the top 15 States. In New Mexico, 71 percent of the private sector employees, according to these statistics, don't have any kind of a pension; Louisiana, 69 percent; Nevada, 67 percent; Florida, 66 percent; Mississippi, 66 percent. People might look at this and say, you are generally talking about southern, southwestern States, close to the border. There are all kinds of problems there with the economy. Let's go to some others. I know my colleague from North Dakota is in the Chamber. According to this chart, 61 percent of the private sector employees in North Dakota do not have a pension. This is data from the employee benefits supplement to the Census Bureau statistics in 1993. The national average, according to that period, in 1993, was 50 percent; South Carolina, 61 percent; in Texas, where our President was Governor, 62 percent did not have a pension. The reason I point this out is to make the point that this is a real issue for a great many Americans. I know we have had people come to the floor and say--in fact, I think my colleague from Texas spoke a couple weeks ago and said the biggest economic issue that this Congress has to deal with is to make permanent the repeal of the estate tax. Well, to change the law as it will be 9 years from now, as relates to the estate tax, when I look at these statistics, I don't think that is the biggest economic issue from the point of view of the people I represent. We have other big economic issues, one of which is pension coverage. At the same time that coverage rates were made flat and employees shifted towards the defined contribution plans, the retirement income of retirees and those nearing retirement has decreased as compared to their current incomes. I have another chart that makes that point. Let me put it up. This is a chart that I think is very interesting because it deals with the issue of the share or percentage of households with an expected retirement income that is more than half of their current income. We are not suggesting that people in retirement are likely to have incomes equal to their current income. We are saying that once they retire we would like them to have incomes that are at least half of their current income. In 1989, according to this chart, 70 percent of the people who were retiring had incomes that equaled half of their current income. So they had as much as a 50-percent reduction in their income, but it wasn't worse than that. In 1998, a couple years ago--the most recent year for which we have statistics--that dropped to 57 percent. So only 57 percent of households had an income that was half of their current income by that time. So who are the winners? Who has benefited from all these changes that have occurred, according to Dr. Wolff's report? The data released in this report demonstrates that only those with retirement incomes of over a million dollars saw their retirement wealth, in 1999, increase as compared to their retirement wealth in 1982. This chart takes each of these different groups--if your wealth is $25,000, or if it is $25,000 to $49,999, $50,000 to $100,000, $100,000 to $250,000. And then the final part of the chart is a million dollars and over. So if you have $1 million and over in your wealth, you have probably seen that increase during that period from 1983 to 1998. But if you are not in that income category and in that wealth category, then you did not. So the conclusions from this report are pretty stark. Coverage rates have been stagnant. The percentage of our private sector workers that have coverage--some kind of pension--has been stagnant for several decades. Minorities still have worse coverage than nonminorities. There has been very little improvement in that regard. The promise of increased coverage due to the shift toward the defined contribution plans that we used to hear about has not occurred. Finally, the relative wealth of almost all classes of retirees--that is, everybody except the people with wealth of over $1 million-- decreased over the past two decades, even though we have seen a huge runup in the stock market. All of the statistics I have given you here are through 1998. We all know there was a booming stock market in the 1990s, up through 1998. The stock market has come down substantially-- at least certain parts of it--in the last couple of years. None of that is reflected in any of these statistics. So we will have to get updated figures as quickly as they come out. But I don't want to suggest that I am taking last week's information in order to make the case. We are making the best case we can, assuming that the stock market did not drop, as we all know it did. We will see a further erosion in retiree wealth when we get those updated statistics. It is time to start thinking about ways to improve coverage. We cannot let these trends continue. We need to talk about reducing and dealing with other issues than just the repeal of the estate tax, as we go through the rest of this Congress. We also have proposals, as I am sure the Presiding Officer knows, that suggest that the top priority for this Congress ought to be privatizing the Social Security system. That is the one remaining leg of the stool that exists which has not yet been whittled away. These statistics make the case convincingly that at least that should be left alone and we should get about the business of trying to help people save for retirement and have a pension upon which they can depend.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a full committee hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of the hearing is to examine manipulation in Western energy markets during 2000-2001, as revealed recently in documents made available as a result of the ongoing investigation underway at FERC; actions that were taken to mitigate any market manipulation or failures; and further actions that should be taken now and in the future. The hearing will be held in SD-366 on Wednesday, May 15, at 2:30 p.m. 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, Attn: Majority Staff, 364 Dirksen Senate Office Building. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery on 202-224-2209.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I would have liked to be able to vote for this farm bill, but regrettably, I cannot. I will vote no on this conference report. Exhibit 1 Dairy Producers of New Mexico, Roswell, NM, May 1, 2002. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator Bingaman: On behalf of Dairy Producers of New Mexico and its membership, I want to thank you and your entire staff, particularly Dr. Dan Alpert, for representing our New Mexico dairy producers. We recognize that national dairy policy is very complex and regionalized, and often contentious. It is indeed very comforting to us to know that our U.S. delegation takes a stand to protect New Mexicans in the face of national politics. The Farm Security Act of 2002 is not good for New Mexico. It introduces a new, expensive, and counter productive direct payment provision to dairy producers on some of their milk. The over one billion dollars thrown into the dairy economy will result in reduced milk prices on all milk regardless of the size of farm that produces it. The family run dairy farms in New Mexico will be especially hard hit. According to FAPRI, the average payment will be about 85 cents a hundredweight but that will only be on the first 2.4 million pounds produced or a maximum payment of about $20,400. This payment will be more than offset by the average milk price on all milk of 14 cents a hundredweight. For the average dairy farmer in New Mexico that is about $52,500 per year. This is a real loss of income. It is not a loss just to the dairy farmers, but to their families, their employees, and their vendors. The economics of the rural New Mexico communities will suffer this loss as well. The Farm Security Act brings us anxiety--anxiety as to when and how the government will again adversely impact our industry. This is not good policy for dairy farmers--it turns them from business people in the market to people on the government dole. It is not good for the taxpayers because it misspends their money. It is not good for our Nation because it interferes with international trade. History will show that your amendment offered last December was wise and those who voted for it and stuck by their votes had a better vision for dairy than the Farm bill now before the Senate. It's a battle that we appreciate you taking on and fighting on our behalf. Yes, there are some provisions that we like. These include dairy price support program extension of $9.90/cwt for six years; authorization of a new national Johne's disease control program; the extension of the Dairy Export Incentive Program (DEIP); fixing the statutory mandatory inventory and price reporting language to prevent further costly reporting errors by the USDA; and funds for dairy and other livestock producers through the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP). Those were by and large non controversial and they do not need to come at the great cost imposed by the dairy market loss program. Again, Senator, we appreciate all of your hard work for the dairy industry in New Mexico. We sincerely appreciate your efforts on behalf of arc family farmers. Sincerely, Sharon L. Lombardi, Executive Director.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to say a few words about the farm bill conference report on which the Senate will soon be voting. Let me say at the outset that there is a lot of good in this bill. I wish I could vote for it. However, I will not vote in favor of this bill today, and I will explain why shortly. Senator Harkin and his staff have worked very hard to craft this farm bill in the face of very strong and competing State and regional interests. I know their task was not an easy one and it is not always possible to please everyone. Clearly, there are some provisions in this bill that will benefit New Mexico. In particular, I would like to cite Chairman Harkin's steadfast commitment to strengthening the agriculture conservation programs that help protect the environment. I do believe the conservation programs should be the real centerpiece of this legislation. Unfortunately, funding for these vital programs was cut $4 billion below the level in the Senate-passed bill. I am disappointed the Senate did not prevail in the conference with the House. Nevertheless, existing conservation programs, such as CRP and EQIP, as well as the new Conservation Security Program, will help protect New Mexico's farm and ranchland for future generations, though not as much as they would have under the Senate bill. There is a new Water Conservation Program that will help slow the depletion of the Southern Ogallala Aquifer in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas. This bill has funding for a new Grassland Reserve Program and a Water Conservation Program that will be helpful to farmers and ranchers in my State, especially with New Mexico now in the throes of an extended drought. There is also mandatory funding in this farm bill for the Small Watershed Rehabilitation Program, which I cosponsored in the last Congress. This program supports reconstruction of the 100 small watershed dams in my State, many of which are 30 to 50 years old and reaching the end of their expected life. Funding for the Market Access Program has been increased, which will help all farmers increase exports of their products. I am pleased the conferees adopted my language that will allow New Mexico's Valencia peanut pool to continue to operate as an effective marketing association. Within this farm bill's nutrition programs, I am pleased that Congress is finally restoring benefits for adult legal immigrants who have lived here for at least 5 years and all children of legal immigrants. I also support increased funding for the WIC and senior farmers' market nutrition programs. This bill continues important rural development programs that have been critical to helping New Mexico's smaller communities improve infrastructure and promote economic development. There are new programs to train rural firefighters and to extend broadband service to rural areas. The additional funding for water and wastewater projects will be especially important to rural communities in my state facing major construction costs to meet EPA's new standard for arsenic in drinking water. Finally, I cosponsored Senator Johnson's bill that requires country of origin labeling of meat, fruits and vegetables, fish and peanuts. The farm bill includes these new labeling provisions. I do believe consumers deserve to know the source of their commercial food products. That is some of the good in this farm bill. However, as I said, I will not be voting in favor of the bill, and I would like to take a few minutes to explain why. This farm bill does nothing to stem the staggering cost to the taxpayers of subsidies for agricultural commodities. In fact, this legislation will increase Federal subsidies by nearly $50 billion over the next decade; this is on top of the baseline funding of $77 billion. The Federal Government's role in agriculture will grow dramatically under this legislation. By some estimates, forty percent of net farm income now comes from the Federal Government. Nearly three-quarters of all of the new money in this bill goes to crop subsidy programs. As we all now know from the analysis does by the Environmental Working Group, the vast majority of these federal subsidies go to growers in 10 central and southern States for only a few specific crops. Such massive subsidies drive up land prices and do nothing to stem over production, especially when commodity prices are low. Even more troubling to me is the new national dairy subsidy program in this farm bill, which will cost taxpayers at least $1.3 billion over the next 3 to 4 years. At the same time it will actually lower the average revenue for milk producers in New Mexico by an estimated 17 cents per hundredweight. That is correct, you heard it right. This program costs taxpayers $1.3 billion and will actually hurt dairy producers in my State. Moreover, we estimate that every producer with more than about 800 cows in all 50 States will lose revenue under this program. Because the average size of New Mexico's dairies is about 1,580 cows, nearly every producer in my State will be hurt by this legislation. In the past decade, New Mexico has quietly come to the forefront of the nation's dairy industry. Milk production in my State has more than tripled since 1990. New Mexico is now seventh in the nation in total milk production and fifth in average milk production per cow. In the first 3 months of this year, production has grown 17 percent over the 2001 level. In Roosevelt and Curry Counties, production is up a whopping 32 percent. There is no secret for my State's booming dairy industry. New Mexico is an ideal location for dairies because of our mild climate, which boosts milk production and does not require sheltering the animals from the weather. In addition, producers are moving to New Mexico because of the strong dairy infrastructure, moderate land prices, and well- integrated alfalfa industry. Currently, there are plans for 35 new dairies in new Mexico, most of which will have between 1,500 and 3,000 cows. These are not some kind of mega-industrial operations, but family-run farms just like dairies all over America. The growth in dairy production in New Mexico is coupled with rapid growth in milk processing, including production of powder, cheese, and ultra-filtered milk. Soon, the Nation's first commercial plant producing milk protein concentrate will open in Portales, New Mexico. The economic impact of the dairy industry on New Mexico is now estimated at $1.8 billion per year. Because New Mexico has mostly large, efficient, family-owned dairies, my State is the big loser under this new daily subsidy program. Independent analyses show the $1.3 billion Federal subsidy will encourage overproduction and depress market prices nationwide. According to FAPRI's preliminary analysis of this legislation, the excess production will drive down national class III and IV milk prices by 17 and 28 cents/cwt, respectively. This means every dairy producer in America will get a lower price for all of his or her milk. Meanwhile, under existing law, the Federal Government must step in and purchase the surplus. The government already owns nearly a billion pounds of surplus nonfat dry milk, equal to an 18-month supply In just the last month alone, the government has had to purchase 80-million pounds of nonfat dry milk at a cost of about $70 million. This legislation will add still more to the government's already bulging powder inventory. The taxpayers, of course, will be asked to bear the cost of purchasing all of this excess production on top of the new $1.3 billion subsidy. Sadly, this ill-conceived program will continue to erode the dairy industry for years to come. Finally, we do not really know how much this program will cost because it depends on milk prices in the future and the number of participants in the program. The lower the price of milk, the higher the cost to the taxpayer. As I indicated, CBO scored the program at $1.3 billion. However, the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute has performed an independent analysis and estimates the total cost to the taxpayers at $3.6 billion--nearly three times more than CBO's estimate. Unfortunately, only time will tell how big the final bill will be for this program. In short, the new dairy program is a real lose-lose proposal for the American people. There simply is no need for Congress to ask taxpayers to subsidize the dairy industry to the tune of billions of dollars. From the outset, I said I could not support a farm bill that contained any massive new national dairy subsidy program. This bill suffers the added defect that it actually harms the dairy industry in my State. In fact, New Mexico's producers are hurt more than producers in any other state. I would like to read part of a letter addressed to me from the Dairy Producers of New Mexico: The Farm Security Act of 2002 is not good for New Mexico. It introduces a new, expensive, and counter productive direct payment provision to dairy producers on some of their milk. The letter goes on: This is not good policy for dairy farmers--it turns them from business people in the market to people on the government dole. It is not good for taxpayers because it misspends their money. It is not good for our Nation because it interferes with international trade. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of this letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that three hearings have been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on S.J. Res. 34, a joint resolution approving the site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, for the development of a repository for the disposal of high- level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, pursuant to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. The purpose of the three hearings is to take testimony on S.J. Res. 34, the President's recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site for development of a repository, and the objections of the Governor of Nevada to the President's recommendation. The hearings will take place on Tuesday, May 14, in SH-216; Thursday, May 16, in SH-216; and Thursday, May 23, room to be announced. Each hearing will begin at 9:30 a.m. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing should e-mail it to Amanda Goldman@energy.senate.gov or fax it to 202-224-9026. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler of the committee staff at (202) 224-4971.]