Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Craig amendment No. 3047 be set aside, to recur at 1:45 p.m.; that the time between 1:45 and 2 p.m. be for debate with respect to that amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, and that no second-degree amendment be in order to the amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with the time equally divided and controlled in the usual form.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I indicate for all Senators we will undoubtedly have to renew this request later today or perhaps tomorrow. We are fast approaching that point where the majority leader is going to have to move to other legislation. We cannot devote the entire year on the Senate floor to consideration of an energy bill where Senators refuse to offer their amendments. I do not accuse anyone of filibustering, but I certainly do believe Senators have been slow to define precisely what they want to offer by the way of amendments to bring them to the floor and to let us vote. Senator Craig from Idaho has offered an amendment with which I strongly disagree, with which my colleague from Wyoming strongly disagrees. We are going to have a vote on that. I compliment the Senator from Idaho for offering an amendment and letting the Senate express its will on this important issue. We will renew this unanimous consent request later today or tomorrow, so we put all Senators on notice that we are anxious to see their amendments and we are anxious to conclude work on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will propound a unanimous consent request in a minute, but before I do, let me indicate I think this is the 15th day we have been on this bill. Frankly, we are not able to move to conclude debate on this bill because we have so many Senators with amendments that they are not willing to bring to the Senate floor to file as amendments and to call those amendments up and offer them. We are not trying to keep anyone from offering an amendment, but we clearly need to begin to narrow down the number of amendments that are potentially going to be offered on this bill. Let me make my unanimous consent request and see if we can get agreement. I ask unanimous consent the list that I will send to the desk be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order to S. 517, except for any first-degree amendments which have been offered and laid aside; that these first-degree amendments be subject to relevant second-degree amendments; that upon the disposition of all amendments, the bill be read the third time and the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 145, H.R. 4, the House-passed energy bill, and all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 517, as amended, be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill be advanced to third reading and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill; that upon passage, the Senate insist on its amendments, request a conference with the House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate; providing further that S. 517 be returned to the calendar, with this action occurring with no further intervening action or debate.

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Wyoming for his comments. Let me raise for the Senate's attention one other voice that has spoken out strongly in behalf of what we are trying to do in our electricity title to the bill and in opposition to the Craig amendment. It is something I seldom quote because I seldom agree with it, but this is the Wall Street Journal editorial page of March 7, 2002. It has an editorial entitled, ``Keep the Lights On.'' It starts out by saying: It is a $225 billion industry, and it's a horrid mess. We refer to the electric power industry, but the U.S. Supreme Court just took a helpful step toward fixing the messiest part of it--transmission--and keeping your lights on. They go on to talk about how they believe FERC needs this authority to do what it is trying to do. The Supreme Court has indicated they believe they have that authority. Our legislation, as worked out between myself and Senator Thomas, does incorporate those provisions. The last paragraph of that editorial says: The Bush Administration agrees with FERC, and now the Supreme Court says the agency is acting legally. Congress could also lend a hand here and, as part of its energy bill, give FERC clear jurisdiction over the transmission grid. We believe in federalism as much as anyone, but a national economy needs a better national grid. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, yesterday, the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the Senate and to the House of Representatives a notice of disapproval of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, pursuant to section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The notice was duly referred in the Senate to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is my duty, as the chairman of the committee to which the notice of disapproval was referred, to introduce, by request, a resolution of repository siting approval not later than the first day of session following the day on which the Governor's notice of disapproval was submitted. In accordance with the statutory requirement, I am today introducing the resolution of repository siting approval. The text of the resolution is prescribed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The resolution will be referred to committee for a period of up to 60 days. Under the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Governor's notice of disapproval will stand, and the Department of Energy will be prohibited from applying for a license to develop a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, unless both Houses of Congress pass the resolution of repository siting approval and it becomes law within 90 days from yesterday. This is an extraordinary process. The 97th Congress, which prescribed this process for us to follow 20 years ago, did not do so lightly. The Members of the 97th Congress only arrived at this procedure after considerable debate. Representative Morris K. Udall, who was the principal architect of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, explained the thinking of our predecessors. ``We are all agreed that the States ought to have a veto,'' Chairman Udall said. ``If you are going to put something as important, as a nuclear waste repository, in a State, then the State, through its Governor or legislature, ought to be able to say no thanks.'' But, he continued, ``we are also agreed that once the State has made that veto, that there ought to be mechanism so that, in the national interest, it could be overridden, as we do in war when we need an air base or at other times when we need Federal eminent domain.'' The process upon which we are embarking today was designed to serve those two goals. It will afford the State of Nevada a fair hearing on its objections to the repository and will ensure that those objections stand unless the administration can persuade both Houses of Congress to override them. At the same time, it will give the administration an opportunity to present its case and to override the State's objections if it can show its decision was sound and in the national interest. It is my intention, once the Senate completes action on the energy bill, to schedule hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site and the objections of the State of Nevada to the use of the site for the nuclear waste repository and to report the committee's recommendation to the Senate within the prescribed 60-day period as the 97th Congress envisioned.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to speak on behalf of the Girl Scouts. In honor of their 90th anniversary, I would like to congratulate this extraordinary group for their many years of excellence and service to this Nation. This organization has provided great opportunities for many girls and young women, helping them to develop to their full potential and to become good citizens and great leaders. The Girl Scout Law states that each girl will strive to possess honesty, courage, responsibility, and respect both for themselves and others. These ideals demonstrate the high standards this organization sets in encouraging the development of young girls. Currently in New Mexico, approximately 8,000 girls and 3,000 women participate in Girl Scouts. Chapparal Council, one of the three New Mexican Girl Scout councils, covers counties in northwestern New Mexico and parts of Southwestern Colorado. The 6,000 members of that council contribute their time and effort to better their communities. These girls, along with countless other women who once pledged the Girl Scouts' promise have and will receive the many benefits from this organization. The Girl Scouts' new initiative ``For Every Girl, Everywhere'' highlights the diversity of this fine group, attempting to reach out to every girl in every community, regardless of race, ethnicity, or geographic boundaries. The Girl Scouts have given girls from every socioeconomic background an equal opportunity to become successful adults through the exploratory and intellectual activities in which they participate. This has especially played an important role in New Mexico. Throughout New Mexico, girls have been changing their lives in a positive way that will no doubt benefit them in their future endeavors. By focusing on health and fitness, appreciating diversity, and community service, the Girl Scouts have inspired girls with high ideas of character, conduct, and patriotism. Girls participate in many events throughout their community such as providing help to those in need and working to improve the environment. They organize donation drives for needy families, plan activities for senior citizens, hold flag ceremonies throughout the State, plant trees and clean up local parks. Although the Girl Scouts are primarily community based, the ideals of caring and helping others are also demonstrated on a national level. After the tragedy of September 11th, Girl Scouts from the Zia Council in New Mexico made dream catchers, a Native American work of art symbolizing peaceful sleep, and had them blessed and sent to New York in memory of the victims and their families as a way of reaching out to those in need of inspiration. Through this organization, girls learn to set high standards and develop qualities that will benefit them throughout their lives. They are able to learn self-confidence, responsibility, and leadership skills, and are encouraged to think creatively. Through the hard work of this organization over 50 million women have been touched by the positive impact of Girl Scouts. As the world's largest girls' organization with currently 2.7 million girl members and just under 1 million adult members, I would like to once again commend past, current and future Girl Scouts for their valuable contributions and dedication over the last 90 years.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, yesterday, the Governor of the State of Nevada submitted to the Senate and to the House of Representatives a notice of disapproval of the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, pursuant to section 116 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The notice was duly referred in the Senate to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources under rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate. Under section 115 of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, it is my duty, as the chairman of the committee to which the notice of disapproval was referred, to introduce, by request, a resolution of repository siting approval not later than the first day of session following the day on which the Governor's notice of disapproval was submitted. In accordance with the statutory requirement, I am today introducing the resolution of repository siting approval. The text of the resolution is prescribed by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The resolution will be referred to committee for a period of up to 60 days. Under the terms of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Governor's notice of disapproval will stand, and the Department of Energy will be prohibited from applying for a license to develop a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, unless both Houses of Congress pass the resolution of repository siting approval and it becomes law within 90 days from yesterday. This is an extraordinary process. The 97th Congress, which prescribed this process for us to follow 20 years ago, did not do so lightly. The Members of the 97th Congress only arrived at this procedure after considerable debate. Representative Morris K. Udall, who was the principal architect of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, explained the thinking of our predecessors. ``We are all agreed that the States ought to have a veto,'' Chairman Udall said. ``If you are going to put something as important, as a nuclear waste repository, in a State, then the State, through its Governor or legislature, ought to be able to say no thanks.'' But, he continued, ``we are also agreed that once the State has made that veto, that there ought to be mechanism so that, in the national interest, it could be overridden, as we do in war when we need an air base or at other times when we need Federal eminent domain.'' The process upon which we are embarking today was designed to serve those two goals. It will afford the State of Nevada a fair hearing on its objections to the repository and will ensure that those objections stand unless the administration can persuade both Houses of Congress to override them. At the same time, it will give the administration an opportunity to present its case and to override the State's objections if it can show its decision was sound and in the national interest. It is my intention, once the Senate completes action on the energy bill, to schedule hearings before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to consider the President's recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site and the objections of the State of Nevada to the use of the site for the nuclear waste repository and to report the committee's recommendation to the Senate within the prescribed 60-day period as the 97th Congress envisioned.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resource. The hearing will take place on Thursday, April 18, 2002, at 3 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1441, to establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area; S. 1526, to establish the Arabia Mountain National Heritage Area in the State of Georgia, and for other purposes. S. 1638, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of designating the French Colonial Heritage Area in the State of Missouri as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes; S. 1809 and H.R. 1776, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to study the suitability and feasibility of establishing the Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area in west Houston, Texas; S. 1939, to establish the Great Basin National Heritage Area, Nevada and Utah; and S. 2033 and H.R. 4004, to authorize appropriations for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, and for other purposes. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks of the committee staff at (202-224-9863).

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children First Act. Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significally increased, making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with child care assistance and expand initiatives to improve the quality of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to quality childcare helps families to work and children to succeed. Yet, we must do more. Only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the CCDBG program receives a subsidy, approximately 12.9 million eligible children without assistance. In March 2000, a family earning as little as $25,000 could not qualify for child care assistance in most States. The need for child care assistance is likely to significantly increase in the near future. Many States are currently faced with serious budget shortfalls that threaten the progress they have made in the provision of child care in recent years. The administration's recently proposed welfare plan would increase work-related requirements for welfare recipients, which if passed will create an even greater demand for child care. Even if this aspect of the administration's welfare proposal is rejected as unworkable, which I believe is the case, we must make providing high- quality child care to low-income families a priority in this Congress. The Children First Act will do just that. Increased availability of child care enables low-income parent on welfare, and parents trying to stay off welfare, to work and support their families. According to a recent administration report, employment among single mothers with young children grew in recent years fro 58 percent to 73 percent. The administration noted: ``These employment increased by single mothers and former welfare mothers are unprecedented.'' Most people agree that employment gains among single mothers can only be sustained if families have access to dependable child care. Studies show that when child care is available, and when families get help paying for care, they are more likely to work. When I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important work support we can provide. In New Mexico, 57 percent of children under 6 live in households in which all parents work. Approximately 67 percent of these households have income less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty threshold. Yet less than 25 percent of children under the age of 6 eligible under federal law for childcare assistance are receiving assistance in New Mexico. Families with both parent working aen earning he minimum wage must pay 49 percent of their income on childcare for one child. Without subsidized care, many of these families can not afford to work. When I talk to people in New Mexico about improving our education system, the need for improved school readiness is often theotp concern. Improved quality of child care is an important component in that effort as well. Quality child care provides low-income children with the early learning experiences that they need to do well in school. We know that children in high-quality early care score higher on reading and math tests, are more likely to complete high school and go onto college, and are less likely to repeat a grade or get charged in juvenile court. In contrast, children in poor quality child care have been found to be more likely to be referred to special education, delayed in language and reading skills and to display more aggression toward other children and adults. In the recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act, Congress and the President signaled a new commitment to improving educational outcomes in our schools. The legislation required states, school districts, and communities to close achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers. In his State of the Union Address earlier this year, President Bush acknowledged the important of early learning and made it a priority for his administration. Increased federal support for child care is critical to supporting high-quality early learning programs. We should work on a bipartisan basis--as we did with respect to the No Child Left Behind Act--towards this goal. We must increase access to child car, but we must also do more to ensure the improved quality of child care. Many families in New Mexico, even those receiving assistance, cannot provide their children with a high quality child car setting. In part, this is caused by the low reimbursement rates provided due to limited funding. For example, in New Mexico the reimbursement rate is $396, while the market rate averaged $470. As a result the higher quality provider often do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs. A lack of qualified care provider also make the provision of high quality care difficult. Childcare workers in New Mexico make, on average, $6.24 per hour, less than half the average weekly wage. Less than 20 percent of these workers receive employee benefits such as health insurance and paid sick leave. The Children First Act will address these issues by increasing funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant by $11.2 billion over five years. With these funds, states will be able to serve approximately 1 million more children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide funds specifically for efforts to improve quality. States can use these funds to provide training to care providers and create and enforce standards of care. The bill also makes common sense changes to the TANF program that support work by enabling states to increase the availability and improve the quality of child care. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to succeed.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Children First Act. Since 1996, federal funding for child care assistance under the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, has significally increased, making it possible for states to provide more low-income families with child care assistance and expand initiatives to improve the quality of child care. This has been an extremely important endeavor. Access to quality childcare helps families to work and children to succeed. Yet, we must do more. Only one out of seven children eligible for assistance through the CCDBG program receives a subsidy, approximately 12.9 million eligible children without assistance. In March 2000, a family earning as little as $25,000 could not qualify for child care assistance in most States. The need for child care assistance is likely to significantly increase in the near future. Many States are currently faced with serious budget shortfalls that threaten the progress they have made in the provision of child care in recent years. The administration's recently proposed welfare plan would increase work-related requirements for welfare recipients, which if passed will create an even greater demand for child care. Even if this aspect of the administration's welfare proposal is rejected as unworkable, which I believe is the case, we must make providing high- quality child care to low-income families a priority in this Congress. The Children First Act will do just that. Increased availability of child care enables low-income parent on welfare, and parents trying to stay off welfare, to work and support their families. According to a recent administration report, employment among single mothers with young children grew in recent years fro 58 percent to 73 percent. The administration noted: ``These employment increased by single mothers and former welfare mothers are unprecedented.'' Most people agree that employment gains among single mothers can only be sustained if families have access to dependable child care. Studies show that when child care is available, and when families get help paying for care, they are more likely to work. When I talk to people in my home State of New Mexico about welfare reform, they identify access to childcare as the most important work support we can provide. In New Mexico, 57 percent of children under 6 live in households in which all parents work. Approximately 67 percent of these households have income less than 200 percent of the Federal poverty threshold. Yet less than 25 percent of children under the age of 6 eligible under federal law for childcare assistance are receiving assistance in New Mexico. Families with both parent working aen earning he minimum wage must pay 49 percent of their income on childcare for one child. Without subsidized care, many of these families can not afford to work. When I talk to people in New Mexico about improving our education system, the need for improved school readiness is often theotp concern. Improved quality of child care is an important component in that effort as well. Quality child care provides low-income children with the early learning experiences that they need to do well in school. We know that children in high-quality early care score higher on reading and math tests, are more likely to complete high school and go onto college, and are less likely to repeat a grade or get charged in juvenile court. In contrast, children in poor quality child care have been found to be more likely to be referred to special education, delayed in language and reading skills and to display more aggression toward other children and adults. In the recently enacted No Child Left Behind Act, Congress and the President signaled a new commitment to improving educational outcomes in our schools. The legislation required states, school districts, and communities to close achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and their peers. In his State of the Union Address earlier this year, President Bush acknowledged the important of early learning and made it a priority for his administration. Increased federal support for child care is critical to supporting high-quality early learning programs. We should work on a bipartisan basis--as we did with respect to the No Child Left Behind Act--towards this goal. We must increase access to child car, but we must also do more to ensure the improved quality of child care. Many families in New Mexico, even those receiving assistance, cannot provide their children with a high quality child car setting. In part, this is caused by the low reimbursement rates provided due to limited funding. For example, in New Mexico the reimbursement rate is $396, while the market rate averaged $470. As a result the higher quality provider often do not accept state-subsidized children into their programs. A lack of qualified care provider also make the provision of high quality care difficult. Childcare workers in New Mexico make, on average, $6.24 per hour, less than half the average weekly wage. Less than 20 percent of these workers receive employee benefits such as health insurance and paid sick leave. The Children First Act will address these issues by increasing funding for the Child Care Development Block Grant by $11.2 billion over five years. With these funds, states will be able to serve approximately 1 million more children nationally. The bill also contains an increase in the quality set-aside in CCDBG, which will provide funds specifically for efforts to improve quality. States can use these funds to provide training to care providers and create and enforce standards of care. The bill also makes common sense changes to the TANF program that support work by enabling states to increase the availability and improve the quality of child care. I urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation. It will help low-income families work and help prepare our children to succeed.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Bond and Inouye entitled the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002,'' or ``Access 2002,'' would improve services for Medicare beneficiaries and protect a critical mission of health centers, to provide access to care to underserved rural, frontier, and inner-city communities. Community health centers, CHC's, provide primary and preventive care to more than 700,000 medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries, including over 20,000 in New Mexico. Health centers also provide critical support services that help seniors more easily access care. In many cases, the local health center may be the only source of primary and preventive care for Medicare beneficiaries in a community. While hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries turn to health centers for care, many centers struggle to provide services to these patients. Current Medicare regulations cause health centers significant financial losses that have a direct impact on access to care. In addition, the Medicare federally qualified health center, FQHC, benefit has not been modernized to include many of the new preventive and other services added to the Medicare package by Congress in recent years again undermining the critical role that health centers play in providing access to care. To address these and other issues, Senators Bond, Inouye, and I are introducing the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002'', also known as ``Access 2002.'' The legislation would address the following problems. With respect to payment issues, the bill ensures that Medicare covers the cost of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries at CHC's. Congress provides more than $1.3 billion in section 330 funding to CHC's to provide care to the uninsured. When Medicare fails to cover the costs of care for Medicare beneficiaries, CHC's must make up for the shortfall through a variety of mechanisms including drawing from the section 330 grants, which are supposed to be dedicated for care to the uninsured. Medicare has historically provided such cost-based reimbursement to other safety net providers, such as certain rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals. Moreover, Congress passed legislation in 2000 to protect health centers from the same problem in Medicaid. The legislation assures that CHC's are afforded the same protections through the Medicare program so that Federal funding for the uninsured is not redirected to pay for shortfalls from Medicare patients. It does so by eliminating the per visit payment cap on health centers' Medicare payments. In the Medicare statute, Congress clearly intended to cover the cost of a health centers' Medicare patients, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, applies an arbitrary ``payment cap'' that is not in the Federal statute. For many health centers, the cap has significantly reduced their Medicare payments, particularly for patients that have chronic illnesses, and forced them to reduce care they would have otherwise provided for their uninsured patients. Our bipartisan legislation prevents the imposition of the Medicare payment cap for health centers, and again, mirrors cost-based reimbursement that a number of other safety-net providers receive through Medicare. The bill also extends payment protections to Medicare+Choice. This is achieved by establishing a supplemental or ``wrap-around'' payment much like the one that currently exists in the Medicaid program for FQHC's contracting with managed care organizations. As this has worked so well in the Medicaid program, Congress should also enact a ``wrap-around'' payment in the Medicare+Choice program to ensure CHC's are having their reasonable costs appropriately covered. In addition, the legislation eliminates regulatory hurdles that impair health centers' ability to provide preventive ambulatory services to Medicare patients. While CHC's provide primary care services to their patients, Medicare does not cover anything other than the most basic services provided at CHC's. Such services that health centers may provide that Medicare does not pay on a cost basis, include: mammograms, nutrition services, or laboratory or x-ray services. Some of these services have been recently been added by Congress but the Medicare FQHC benefit has not been updated to reflect those changes. This legislation would expand the services that health centers could provide to medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, the bill ensures the availability of these services to those enrolling in Medicare managed care but requiring Medicare+Choice plans to contract with a sufficient number of FQHC's to make FQHC services accessible to plan enrollees. And finally, the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002'' establishes a safe harbor in the federal anti-kickback statute for arrangements between health centers and other providers that improve access to services for low-income patients in underserved communities. Health centers and other providers often participate in arrangements designed to expand their ability to provide care in the poor communities they serve. However, these arrangements can potentially expose health centers under the federal anti-kickback laws. For nine years, a proposed ``safe harbor'' has been pending before the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General, HHS IOG, that would allow health centers to contract with other providers to improve health services to low-income patients without fear of being in violation of the anti-kickback law. To qualify under the proposed safe harbor, the arrangement would have to meet strict criteria to protect against fraud and abuse, including the demonstration of a community benefit through the savings of grant dollars intended for care for the uninsured or an increase in the availability of services to a medically underserved community. There are additional requirements, such as assurances that the arrangement to not limit a patient's freedom of choice, in addition to any others that the IOG deems are needed as long as they are consistent with congressional intent. Community health centers enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress because they are cost-effective providers of services that keep patients healthy and out of costly specialty and emergency settings. As more people prepare to enter the Medicare program, it is vital that beneficiaries in rural, frontier, and inner-city areas have access to the full range of Medicare benefits. Health centers are the vehicle to make that happen. I urge passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Bond and Inouye entitled the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002,'' or ``Access 2002,'' would improve services for Medicare beneficiaries and protect a critical mission of health centers, to provide access to care to underserved rural, frontier, and inner-city communities. Community health centers, CHC's, provide primary and preventive care to more than 700,000 medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries, including over 20,000 in New Mexico. Health centers also provide critical support services that help seniors more easily access care. In many cases, the local health center may be the only source of primary and preventive care for Medicare beneficiaries in a community. While hundreds of thousands of Medicare beneficiaries turn to health centers for care, many centers struggle to provide services to these patients. Current Medicare regulations cause health centers significant financial losses that have a direct impact on access to care. In addition, the Medicare federally qualified health center, FQHC, benefit has not been modernized to include many of the new preventive and other services added to the Medicare package by Congress in recent years again undermining the critical role that health centers play in providing access to care. To address these and other issues, Senators Bond, Inouye, and I are introducing the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002'', also known as ``Access 2002.'' The legislation would address the following problems. With respect to payment issues, the bill ensures that Medicare covers the cost of providing care to Medicare beneficiaries at CHC's. Congress provides more than $1.3 billion in section 330 funding to CHC's to provide care to the uninsured. When Medicare fails to cover the costs of care for Medicare beneficiaries, CHC's must make up for the shortfall through a variety of mechanisms including drawing from the section 330 grants, which are supposed to be dedicated for care to the uninsured. Medicare has historically provided such cost-based reimbursement to other safety net providers, such as certain rural hospitals, cancer hospitals, and children's hospitals. Moreover, Congress passed legislation in 2000 to protect health centers from the same problem in Medicaid. The legislation assures that CHC's are afforded the same protections through the Medicare program so that Federal funding for the uninsured is not redirected to pay for shortfalls from Medicare patients. It does so by eliminating the per visit payment cap on health centers' Medicare payments. In the Medicare statute, Congress clearly intended to cover the cost of a health centers' Medicare patients, but the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, applies an arbitrary ``payment cap'' that is not in the Federal statute. For many health centers, the cap has significantly reduced their Medicare payments, particularly for patients that have chronic illnesses, and forced them to reduce care they would have otherwise provided for their uninsured patients. Our bipartisan legislation prevents the imposition of the Medicare payment cap for health centers, and again, mirrors cost-based reimbursement that a number of other safety-net providers receive through Medicare. The bill also extends payment protections to Medicare+Choice. This is achieved by establishing a supplemental or ``wrap-around'' payment much like the one that currently exists in the Medicaid program for FQHC's contracting with managed care organizations. As this has worked so well in the Medicaid program, Congress should also enact a ``wrap-around'' payment in the Medicare+Choice program to ensure CHC's are having their reasonable costs appropriately covered. In addition, the legislation eliminates regulatory hurdles that impair health centers' ability to provide preventive ambulatory services to Medicare patients. While CHC's provide primary care services to their patients, Medicare does not cover anything other than the most basic services provided at CHC's. Such services that health centers may provide that Medicare does not pay on a cost basis, include: mammograms, nutrition services, or laboratory or x-ray services. Some of these services have been recently been added by Congress but the Medicare FQHC benefit has not been updated to reflect those changes. This legislation would expand the services that health centers could provide to medically underserved Medicare beneficiaries. Furthermore, the bill ensures the availability of these services to those enrolling in Medicare managed care but requiring Medicare+Choice plans to contract with a sufficient number of FQHC's to make FQHC services accessible to plan enrollees. And finally, the ``Medicare Safety Net Access Act of 2002'' establishes a safe harbor in the federal anti-kickback statute for arrangements between health centers and other providers that improve access to services for low-income patients in underserved communities. Health centers and other providers often participate in arrangements designed to expand their ability to provide care in the poor communities they serve. However, these arrangements can potentially expose health centers under the federal anti-kickback laws. For nine years, a proposed ``safe harbor'' has been pending before the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General, HHS IOG, that would allow health centers to contract with other providers to improve health services to low-income patients without fear of being in violation of the anti-kickback law. To qualify under the proposed safe harbor, the arrangement would have to meet strict criteria to protect against fraud and abuse, including the demonstration of a community benefit through the savings of grant dollars intended for care for the uninsured or an increase in the availability of services to a medically underserved community. There are additional requirements, such as assurances that the arrangement to not limit a patient's freedom of choice, in addition to any others that the IOG deems are needed as long as they are consistent with congressional intent. Community health centers enjoy strong bipartisan support in Congress because they are cost-effective providers of services that keep patients healthy and out of costly specialty and emergency settings. As more people prepare to enter the Medicare program, it is vital that beneficiaries in rural, frontier, and inner-city areas have access to the full range of Medicare benefits. Health centers are the vehicle to make that happen. I urge passage of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, you have at the desk 11 amendments. I ask for their immediate consideration en bloc.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, last week the Senate adopted an amendment by Senators Murkowski and Daschle relating to rural and remote community grants. There were a number of inadvertent errors in the amendment as adopted. Accordingly, I ask unanimous consent that the adoption of amendment No. 2996 be vitiated.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I believe the next item under the unanimous consent agreement is a vote on the Bingaman amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the amendment is acceptable on this side.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We yield our time.