Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Otero, Lincoln, Torrance, Guadalupe, and Quay Counties. By improving the transportation infrastructure, I believe this legislation will help attract good jobs to South, Central, and Eastern New Mexico. The bill we are introducing today designates U.S. Highway 54 from the border with Mexico at El Paso, TX, through New Mexico, and Oklahoma to Wichita, KS, as the Southwest Passage Initiative for the Regional and Interstate Transportation, or the Southwest Passage, corridor. Congress has already included Highway 54 as part of the National Highway System. The bill designates the Southwest Passage as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. I am honored to have my good friend and colleague, Senator Roberts, as a cosponsor of the bill. Our goal with this designation is to promote the development of this 700-mile route into a full four-lane divided highway. About half of the SPIRIT corridor is in New Mexico and another 200 miles of it are in Kansas. I continue to believe strongly in the importance of highway infrastructure for economic development in my state. Even in this age of the new economy and high-speed digital communications, roads continue to link our communities together and to carry the commercial goods and products our citizens need. Safe and efficient highways are especially important to citizens in the rural parts of New Mexico. It is well known that regions with four-lane highways more readily attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Truck drivers and the traveling public prefer the safety of a four-lane divided highway. In New Mexico, US 54 is a fairly level route, bypassing New Mexico's major mountain ranges. The route also traverses some of New Mexico's most dramatic scenery, including one of the State's popular designated Scenic Byways. The Mesalands Scenic Byway is located in Guadalupe, San Miguel and Quay Counties, incorporating the beautiful tablelands known as El Llano Estacado. The SPIRIT corridor also passes through Alamogordo, home of the New Mexico Museum of Space History, and gateway to the stunning White Sands National Monument. The route of the Southwest Passage starts at Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico, home of one the largest concentrations of manufacturing in the border region. As a result of increased trade under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is already increasing at the border crossings in El Paso, TX, and Santa Teresa, NM. In New Mexico, truck traffic from the border has risen to over 1000 per day and is expected to triple in the next twenty years. The SPIRIT corridor is perfectly situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. The route provides direct connections to four major Interstate Highways: I-10, I-35, I-40, and I-70. SPIRIT is also the shortest route between Chicago and El Paso, shaving 137 miles off the major alternative. Though much of US 54 is currently only two lanes, traffic has been rising dramatically along the entire route since NAFTA was implemented. In New Mexico, total daily traffic levels are nearing 10,000 and are projected to rise to 30,000, with trucks making up 35 percent of the total. In Oklahoma, traffic levels are up to 6,500 per day, 40 percent of which are commercial trucks. These traffic statistics clearly reflect the SPIRIT corridor's attraction to commercial and passenger drivers. New Mexicans recognize the importance of efficient roads to economic development and safety. I have long supported my State's efforts to complete the four-lane upgrade of US 54. The State Highway and Transportation Department now rates the project a high priority for New Mexico. The four-lane upgrade of the first 56-mile segment from the Texas border to Alamogordo is underway and will be completed in the next year. Two more sections in New Mexico remain to be upgraded: 163 miles from Tularosa, north through Carrizozo, Corona, and Vaughn to Santa Rosa and 50 miles from Tucumcari to the Texas border near Nara Vista in Quay County. The cost to four-lane these two segments is estimated at $329 million and $85 million, respectively. I am committed to working to help secure the funding required to complete New Mexico's four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I am pleased the other States are also moving quickly to four-lane their portion of the route. I hope designating SPIRIT as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System will help spur the completion of this project. Once the SPIRIT corridor is designated, New Mexico will have four high-priority corridors on the National Highway System. The other three are the Ports-to-Plains corridor, the Camino Real Corridor, and the East West Transamerica Corridor. These four trade corridors, as well as our close proximity to the border, strongly underscore the vital role New Mexico plays in our Nation's international transportation network. The SPIRIT project has broad grassroots support. Most of the cities, counties, and chambers of commerce all the way from Wichita to El Paso have passed resolutions of support for the four-lane upgrade of US 54 along the entire corridor. I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 54 is vital to the continued economic development for all of the communities along the SPIRIT corridor in New Mexico. I again thank Senator Roberts for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all Senators will join us in support of this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, since I have been quoted, or a press release has from my office, the decision to terminate the markup of any legislation on energy was made by me after consultation with the majority leader because it was a joint decision by us that the best way to get a bill to the Senate floor, which reflected the policies that we agreed made sense for the country, was to pursue that approach. As the majority leader has pointed out, that is exactly the approach that Senator Lott used when he was majority leader. As far as the action we have taken in the Senate Energy Committee, I think the Senator from Alaska will acknowledge that we have had a series of hearings. We have had various confirmation hearings. I have approached the Senator from Alaska several times in the last several months to see whether or not we could proceed to consider legislation without having controversial energy bill amendments added to that legislation. I was informed we could not. We have held off on considering those other nonrelated pieces of legislation. We have worked hard to accommodate the majority and to accommodate the administration in getting all of their nominees approved. We have worked hard to have hearings that were of interest to members of the committee. And we intend to continue doing so. Frankly, I am very proud of the product we are bringing to the Senate for consideration today. It is a good bill. It does reflect many proposals that came from the Republican side. We worked hard with Members from the Republican side to perfect provisions in this bill. It has not been in an official markup. But just as we have worked with Democratic Members to perfect provisions in the bill, we worked with Republican Members to perfect provisions in the bill, and the same with the administration. This is a combined effort. I feel very good about it. I hope we can get on with a discussion of the bill, with consideration of amendments, to the extent that Senators have amendments. I know there are many. That is exactly what this period on the Senate floor is devoted to. I know the Senator from Alaska has been anxious to get a debate on the Senate floor and anxious to get an opportunity to offer his amendments. He has that time. He has that opportunity. I hope we will use it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, may I clarify, since I have been quoted, at least?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, could I also respond to----

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I believe the next order of business is to have the opening statement of the Senator from Alaska. Unless my colleague from Nevada has business to transact, I suggest the absence of a quorum until the Senator from Alaska arrives.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to support the Schumer-Wyden amendment to the election reform bill. This important amendment would fix what I believe is a very problematic provision in the bill. That provision requires first-time voters who registered by mail to provide either a photo identification or a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, or other government document establishing their identity. I commend the sponsors of the bill for their focus on ensuring strong anti-fraud protection; but I believe this provision goes too far and could end up disenfranchising significant numbers of voters. In particular, the elderly, students, low-income voters, minorities, and the disabled are examples of people who could have a difficult time meeting the requirements of the Election Reform bill, as written. In addition, the bill would impose a significant burden on many States, including my own, that currently allow the use of signature verification and attestation to verify identity. If the bill is not amended, my State would have to do away with that procedure altogether. For these reasons, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Schumer-Wyden amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote for it. This important amendment would add two alternative verifiers for first time voters who vote in person: (1) it would allow voters to attest to who they are by signing a sworn statement, falsification of which is punishable as perjury; or (2) it would allow voters to have their signatures verified by matching them to signatures on record with State or local election officials. First time voters who vote by mail also would be given an alternative to a photo ID or other government document--they would be allowed to use signature matching to establish their identity. I believe this is a sensible and necessary measure. And I'm pleased to report that it enjoys the support of the nation's leading civil rights organizations, including: MALDEF, the NAACP, the National Council of La Raza, LULAC, AARP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and the League of Women Voters. The intent of the Election Reform bill is to ensure that every vote counts, but if we do not act now by passing the Schumer-Wyden amendment, I fear that many tens of thousands of voters will once again face significant barriers to voting the next time they go to the polls. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing today, vote yes on the Schumer-Wyden amendment.

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 full committee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 26, 2002, at 9:00 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Raymond L. Orbach to be Director of the Office of Science, Department of Energy. 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, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler on 202-224-7571 or Amanda Goldman on 202-224-6836. committee on indian affairs

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call to the attention of my colleagues the fact that the President announced his plan related to global warming. The plan appears to endorse some of the energy efficiency and clean energy incentives that were reported out of the Senate Finance Committee last evening. Obviously, I think all of us welcome White House support for those initiatives. I hope we can get the same level of support from the White House for the other critical elements in the energy bill that relate to this important issue of global warming. Unfortunately, the rest of the plan that the administration unveiled today appears to be little more than business as usual. The President's statement earlier today referenced the voluntary reporting program for greenhouse gas emissions which was established by Congress in 1992 as part of the Energy Policy Act. The intent of that program at that time was to encourage the energy sector to begin to pay attention to greenhouse gas emissions. It was not to drive serious reductions in emissions. It was a decade ago when that legislation was passed, and we know much more now about global warming and the threat that it could pose to us. According to a year 2000 report by the Energy Information Administration entitled ``Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States,'' U.S. energy intensity--that is the energy consumed per each dollar of gross domestic product, and that is sort of the measure the President referred to--fell by an average of 1.6 percent per year from 1990 to the year 2000. At the same time that energy intensity was falling, the carbon intensity of energy use has remained fairly constant. It is the use of less energy per unit of economic output that has kept emissions from growing at the same rate as the economy is growing, and the rate of carbon emissions per unit of energy is not decreasing--or is decreasing very little, certainly not enough. Our economy has become increasingly oriented toward the service sector, toward intellectual, high technology sectors. We are less focused on heavy industry and manufacturing, and we are using less energy per dollar of gross domestic product, which is to be expected as our economy has evolved. Yet as the population has grown and affluence has increased, we are using more and more energy without reducing the emissions per unit of energy consumed. Clearly, climate change is an energy issue. We need to address it as part of this energy policy debate that we are going to have when the Congress returns after next week. The United States committed under the framework convention on climate change that was ratified in the Senate that we would take action to reduce emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Under the plan announced today, the U.S. emissions will be 30 percent above 1990 levels by the year 2012. Continued reliance on these voluntary actions, which is what the President is urging, without an overall policy framework, without specific goals, will not lead to any serious reductions in domestic emissions of greenhouse gases. I have to ask why we would sell our technological and entrepreneurial ingenuity so short. The American people believe climate change is a critical issue. They also believe we can innovate our way to solutions to these problems. With the administration approach to addressing climate change, I fear we are communicating to the world we no longer have confidence in our technological ability to solve these problems. The energy bill we are going to debate when we return from the recess includes concrete energy policy provisions that will reduce carbon intensity in the energy sector. It includes increased vehicle fuel economy and provides incentives to commercialized cutting-edge vehicle technologies. It gives consumers greater information about emissions from the energy they use so they can make deliberate decisions to control their own contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. It increases the mix of technologies for power generation, including a much greater role for renewables and more efficient fossil generation technology. The renewable portfolio standard, for example--and that is a provision in the bill we will be debating--is a market-driven approach that will force renewable projects to compete against each other for a share in the electricity market. To shift to a greater investment and combine heat and power systems could more than double the efficiency of coal-fired generation while dramatically cutting emissions. There are many creative and thoughtful people in the private sector eager to move forward with these types of projects. The right energy policies can unleash the competitive creativity that will meet our energy needs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We need to agree on a framework that removes impediments to efficiency and market competition, that provides incentives for cleaner energy strategies that will reduce emissions, and a framework that empowers consumers to control their energy choices and manage their own environmental impact. When I talk to students in my State--and I am planning to do that on several occasions this next week--they express great interest in energy and environmental issues. They want to know what they can do to affect greenhouse gas emissions. They have a much greater stake in the future than those of us here do, in fact. We need to be sure that 10 years from now we have not left them with a problem that is out of control. We need to be responsible and prudent now and not wait until 2012 to make hard decisions on this very difficult issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 6 minutes as in morning business.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to comment Senator Harkin for including in the farm bill a provision that is crucial to the Great Plains region of our Nation. The provision addresses the alarming decline in groundwater in the Southern Ogallala Aquifer, which extends under four States: Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas. A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural areas are dependent on the use of ground water for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this groundwater resource. Some areas have seen a decline of over 100 feet in aquifer levels during the last half of the twentieth century. This provision would establish a voluntary 4-year groundwater conservation incentives program for the Southern High Plains Aquifer region. Incentive payments would be made for voluntary land management practices, which may include changes from irrigated to dryland agriculture, changes in cropping patterns to utilize water conserving crops, and other conservation measures that results in significant savings in groundwater use. Cost-share payments will be made for structural practices that will conserve groundwater resources of the High Plains Aquifer, which may include improvement of irrigation systems and purchase of new equipment. The provision also requires the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake groundwater education efforts in the southern High Plains Aquifer area, cooperating in these efforts by working with the southern High Plains Aquifer states, the land grant colleges and universities in the area and their state cooperative extension services, other educational institutions, and private organizations, as appropriate. This provision brings focus to an issue that concerns the long-term economic viability of communities in much of America's heartland. This is farm country, and the cornerstone of its economy is its groundwater supply, the Ogallala Aquifer, which allows for irrigated agriculture. The Department of Agriculture estimates that there are over 6 million acres of irrigated agriculture overlying just the southern portion of the Ogallala. These farms use between 6 and 9 million acre feet of water per year. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains. This provision will take significant steps to address this serious problem.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the dairy amendment by my friend and colleague, Senator Domenici. I do believe this amendment is an improvement to the dairy provision in the Daschle/ Harkin substitute the Senate is now considering. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I believe a market-oriented approach is the right approach for national dairy policy. The existing price support program and the federal milk marketing orders have served the producers and consumers for many years and I am pleased the farm bill extends the price support program until 2006. The Dashle-Harkin substitute creates a new $2 billion federal dairy payment scheme. Mr. President, the independent Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute has analyzed the dairy provisions in the substitute. The analysis shows that during the five years of this farm bill, the new federal payments will encourage overproduction and drive down market prices. For the first two years of the farm bill, producer income is up because of the federal payments. But by the third year, the federal payments drop off dramatically and producers are actually worse off for the final two years of the farm bill. Moreover, the market prices for milk used for cheese, butter, and powdered milk are lower every year. I don't believe the nation will be well served by the new dairy payment scheme in the Daschle/Harkin substitute. That's why I proposed an amendment last month with Senator Crapo to eliminate the new dairy payment program. Our amendment failed on a vote of 51 to 47. Though I do not support creating any new dairy payment program, I support this modest amendment because it recognizes the fact that the dairy industry in America has become one national market. Today, milk and milk products are transported long distances economically to meet the needs of consumers in every state. Mr. President, competition encourages efficiency and consumers benefit from national markets. Unfortunately, the bill as it now is divides the country into two markets. One for 12 Northeast States where producers receive one federal payment for their milk and another one for producers in the other States with a different federal payment. No other agricultural commodity is treated this way in this farm bill. Producers in the 12 States will receive 25 percent of the federal payments, though they produce less than 18 percent of the nation's milk. Moreover, farmers in the 12 States are guaranteed a payment of nearly $17 dollars per hundredweight, while payments elsewhere are based on a fraction of the market rates and undoubtedly will be substantially lower. This amendment combines the two regions and treats producers in every State equally. Another concern I have with the underlying language is that it is not fair to all farmers. Federal payments would be capped at 8 million pounds, which will put producers in New Mexico at a serious disadvantage in marketing their milk. Because of the cap, producers in New Mexico would receive an average of less than 20 cents per hundredweight for their milk--48th out of the 50 States. Only farmers in Arizona and Wyoming would do worse than New Mexico. Under our amendment, all producers are paid at the same rate. Finally, we have not fully considered the boundary effects of the new dairy payment scheme. What's going to happen to producers in States like Ohio and Virginia, which border the 12-State region? Will the higher federal payment to producers inside the region hurt the producers just outside the region? Under our amendment, there are no boundary effects because there is only a single, nation-wide payment rate. New Mexico has one of the nation's fastest growing dairy industries, more than tripling in the past 10 years. In 2001, New Mexico moved up from the tenth to the eighth largest dairy producing State. More recently New Mexico has moved into seventh place. A recent study by Dr. Michael Looper of New Mexico State University showed the dairy industry payroll in New Mexico in 2000 was $25 million per year and the total annual economic impact in the State was $1.6 billion. In Chavez County alone, the economic impact of milk production was a whopping $527 million per year. Dairy is now a critical element of my State's economy, especially in rural areas. I cannot support any new federal program that could endanger New Mexico's vibrant dairy industry. New Mexico tends to have large, efficient dairies, which are the big losers under the current dairy proposal. These are family-owned dairies in rural areas--just like in the other States. They are bigger because New Mexico has the land and resources to support larger dairies. This amendment is good for the diary farmers in New Mexico and a positive improvement to the underlying bill because it treats farmers in every State equally. I believe we should work toward a balanced national dairy policy that is fair to all farmers, not one that pits one State against another and large dairies against small producers. I hope the Senate will soon complete work on this farm bill and I look forward to working with Chairman Harkin to further improve the dairy programs as the bill moves to conference. I do believe this amendment is a step in the right direction I commend Senator Domenici for his amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the assistant majority leader for his help in providing me time to explain a vote we cast fairly recently. Senator Reid proposed a second-degree amendment to the farm bill which I supported. The amendment would be a substitute to the water conservation provision contained in section 215 of the underlying bill. I have reviewed the amendment that Senator Reid offered and that the Senate adopted. I believe it is good law, it is good policy, and it is a substantial improvement over the original proposal. So I did support it. I think it is a constructive proposal. Section 215, as originally conceived, sought to provide direct Federal assistance to farmers by allowing the Federal Government to lease or acquire water rights on a willing seller basis to use as part of a plan to protect and recover certain species and certain habitat. That is a worthy goal, but as in all water-related issues--and we know this in New Mexico perhaps better than in most parts of the country-- the devil is in the details. On close review, valid concerns were raised. No. 1 was whether the program would be conducted pursuant to all applicable State law; No. 2, what would be the implications of Federal ownership of Federal water rights; No. 3, what was the correct linkage between the Conservation Reserve Program and the Endangered Species Act. So to address these problems, we agreed--this was before Christmas, before the end of the session last year--to prohibit the application of the section 215 water conservation program in any State in which the Governor had not formally agreed to the program being used. This change, however, although it was a substantial step forward--I thought, again, it was a constructive way to proceed--it was considered insufficient to address the needs of some States, such as my State-- States that wanted to make use of the program but were still concerned about the issues I have mentioned--these concerns about Federal ownership of water, in particular. Fortunately, Senator Reid was agreeable to making changes in that language and we were able to adopt a much-improved version of the amendment just in the last few minutes. The amendment that has now been adopted addresses many of the same conservation goals by utilizing two State-based water conservation programs. The first program, which is a water conservation reserve program, would fund States that submit proposals seeking to enroll land in a conservation reserve or to acquire water rights to advance the goals of Federal, State, tribal, or local plans to conserve and protect fish and wildlife. The second of the two programs that are provided for in Senator Reid's new amendment is a water benefits program under which participating States can develop a plan where willing water users are offered assistance or compensation for several different water savings options, such as irrigation efficiency improvements, converting from water-intensive to less water-intensive crops, leasing or selling water rights--again, not to the Federal Government, but to the State. Quite simply, the original concept has been converted into two programs that are State based and State controlled. Under the new amendment, there is no possibility of the Federal Government buying or leasing water rights. That is prohibited. The remaining Federal role is to review the State proposal to ensure that they fulfill certain general purposes and to prioritize funding between competing proposals in order to get a State plan implemented. I think it is appropriate that the Federal Government try to provide some assistance to States and to the agricultural community to address these difficult needs that arise when the water needs of farmers compete with the needs of fish and wildlife. This is particularly true where the conflict is exacerbated by Federal laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. There are situations all over the West--in the Rio Grande Valley in my State, in the Colorado River, all the way to the Columbia River--where States, local water users, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are sitting down together and jointly working out water allocation issues for the benefit of all involved. There is no easy solution. In all of those cases where solutions are developed, they cost money. Let me mention a specific situation we have in New Mexico. The Pecos River flows southeast through New Mexico to the Texas border. That major river basin is, unfortunately, close to a number of issues that include endangered species needs, drought, and the interstate compact with Texas that is the subject of existing U.S. Supreme Court orders. For all these reasons, our State has had in place a limited program to conserve and protect river flows, similar to that contemplated in the amendment Senator Reid offered. The situation now, however, is so severe that local water users, with the help of the State, with the State facilitation, have agreed to new measures, including retiring water rights to ensure compliance with existing legal obligations, and to avoid having water cut off that is being used for municipal and agricultural needs. Let me emphasize that this is a locally driven process. The Federal Government has not even participated in the discussions. But the reality of the new plan, which has been developed locally, is that it is going to cost an estimated $68 million. It is unclear and unlikely that our State can put together that level of funding. It is quite possible that, through the programs we have included in this amendment, we could provide a very useful tool to New Mexico and to the Pecos River Basin. Stakeholders in the basin have shown they are willing to make tough decisions to avoid even tougher times in the future. The least we can do is try to provide creative ways to bring real resources to the table in support of those efforts. That is a reason I supported Senator Reid's amendment. I know my colleague expressed his dismay that I would agree to provide the option for New Mexico to participate in these programs. In my view, it would be foolhardy for our State not to have that option to participate. There is no mandate that we participate. There is no mandate in any of this legislation that any farmer or water user participate. But having the option to access these resources, in my view, makes a great deal of sense. In sum, the amendment Senator Reid proposed, and the Senate adopted, may prove to be a very effective tool in helping our constituents to deal with the serious water issues they now face. Moreover, the amendment addresses the problems identified by the Farm Bureau and other entities regarding the existing section 215. First and foremost, there will be no Federal ownership of State-based water rights as part of the program. Second, the amendment is absolutely clear that the program will be implemented as a State program, and only implemented if the State chooses for it to be implemented. There will have to be complete compliance with the substantive and procedural requirements of State water law. Finally, although the State may choose to use its program to help alleviate endangered species conflicts, this is not the sole basis or the application of the program. Other wildlife and habitat improvement programs are also allowable, and because any water acquisition will be done by the State, Federal actions are limited--something that should alleviate a significant number of the concerns I mentioned before. I believe the statutory language protects the State's laws and prerogatives. I believe it protects the prerogatives and rights of individual water users. I believe it can be a very useful tool for my State of New Mexico. And if there are still problems with specific aspects of the language, I am certainly willing to consider working on modifications. But it is my strong impression that this is a program that could be of great benefit to many States in the West, and we should have the option to participate if the State so chooses. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution today with Senators Lugar, Carnahan, Bond, Torricelli and DeWine, designating March 31, 2002 and March 31, 2003 as ``National Civilian Conservation Corps Day.'' March 31, 2002 is the 69th anniversary and March 31, 2003 is the 70th anniversary of the signing by President Roosevelt of the Emergency Conservation Work Act, the precursor to the Civilian Conservation Corps Act. The Civilian Conservation Corps, commonly known as the CCC, was a Depression-era public works program started by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The CCC put over 3 million young men to work on natural resources conservation and public lands infrastructure improvements. Many of the physical accomplishments of the CCC are still visible, but even more importantly, the CCC also provided its participants with education, lasting friendships, a cooperative spirit, and a foundation of self-confidence and discipline. Americans still enjoy the benefits of the work done by the CCC in the 1930s and 1940s at national and state parks across the U.S. CCC participants planted more than 3 billion trees, developed more than 800 state parks, improved more than 3,000 beaches and are responsible for countless monuments, signs, wells, and other improvements. CCC camps were located in every State, including the then-territories of Hawaii and Alaska. CCC alumni across the country still share the bonds of friendship and hard work. The National Association of Civilian Conservation Corps Alumni has thousands of active members from all 50 States whose lives were often dramatically changed for the better by their enrollment years ago. Many traveled for the first time, learned new trades and developed self-confidence, while sending much-needed money home to their families during the Depression. This resolution would pay tribute to the lasting contribution of the CCC to natural resources conservation and infrastructure improvements and to its outstanding success in providing employment and training to millions of Americans.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who through his dedication and vision made a significant difference in the lives of many people in my home state of New Mexico and around the country. Lloyd Kiva New passed away last Friday in Santa Fe at the age of 85. A Cherokee from Oklahoma, Lloyd Kiva New was a graduate of the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. He became the first American Indian to obtain a degree in arts education from the institute in 1938. After serving in World War II, he established a fashion design studio in Arizona. He was also instrumental in developing several progressive educational projects, including the Southwest Indian Arts Project. In 1962, Lloyd Kiva New co-founded the Institute of American Indian Arts, an innovative school located in Santa Fe. He became the IAIA's Art Director and eventually its President. He retired as full-time president of the institute in 1978. He was known for his novel approach to the arts in which he sought to reawaken artistic traditions that had been a primary mode of Indian expression for centuries. He continually urged students not to be bound by existing notions of artistic expression and to reject stereotypical ideas of American Indian art and culture. In part because of his vision, IAIA has been influential is sending art from Indian artist all over America, enriching Indian and mainstream cultures in the process. The recipient of numerous awards, Lloyd Kiva New also served on the Indian Arts and Crafts Board and the National Council of the Museum of the American Indian. In addition, he was named President Emeritus of the IAIA, was honored as a Living Treasure of Santa Fe, and received the New Mexico Governor's Award for Excellence in the Arts. I wish to extend my deepest sympathies for his passing to his family and loved ones. His wife, two children, and five grandchildren survive him. Many people were inspired and encouraged by Lloyd Kiva New over the years. He has left a great legacy and his absence will be deeply felt in the American Indian communities and in the hearts of many individuals.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, March 7, 2002, at 2:30 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. 213 and H.R. 37, to amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and provide for possible additions to such trails; S. 1069 and H.R. 834, to amend the National Trails System Act to clarify Federal authority relating to land acquisition from willing sellers for the majority of the trails in the System, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1384, to amend the National Trails System Act to designate the route in Arizona and New Mexico which the Navajo and Mescalero Apache Indian Tribes were forced to walk in 1863 and 1864, for study for potential addition to the National Trails System. 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, U.S. 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 would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an additional bill has been added to the hearing agenda for the hearing that was previously scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, February 14, 2002, beginning at 2:30 p.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The additional measure to be considered is S. 1894, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to determine the national significance of the Miami Circle site in the State of Florida as well as the sustainability and feasibility of its inclusion in the National Park System as part of Biscayne National Park. For further information, please contact Shelley Brown of the committee staff at (202-224-5915).

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for my colleagues and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the FY 2003 budget requests for the Department of the Interior, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Department of Energy. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, February 12, 2002 at 9:30 a.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, First and C Streets, NE., Washington, DC. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the printed hearing record should send their comments to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510, Attention: Sam Fowler. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler 202/224-7571 or Amanda Goldman 202/224-4103 of the Committee Staff. committee on indian affairs

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 hearing will take place on Wednesday, February 6, at 9:30 a.m. in a location to be announced. The hearing will examine the effects of Subtitle B of S. 1766, Amendments to the Public Utility Holding Company Act, on energy markets and energy consumers. Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Leon Lowery, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Leon Lowery at 202/224-2209 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6722. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on National Parks of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, February 14, 2002, beginning at 2:30 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. 202 and H.R. 2440, to rename Wolf Trap Farm Park as Wolf Trap National Park for the Performing Arts; S. 1051 and H.R. 1456, to expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, and for other purposes; S. 1061 and H.R. 2238, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to acquire Fern Lake and the surrounding watershed in the States of Kentucky and Tennessee for addition to Cumberland Gap National Historical Park, and for other purposes; S. 1649, to amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to increase the authorization of appropriations for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve and for the preservation of Vancouver Barracks; and H.R. 2234, to revise the boundary of the Tumacacori National Historical Park in the State of Arizona. 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 Subcommittee on National Parks, 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 pay tribute to a dedicated and distinguished public servant. Eleanor Towns, Regional Forester for the United States Forest Service's Southwestern Region, is retiring at the end of this month. Eleanor ``Ellie'' Towns will conclude more than two decades of outstanding achievement with the Forest Service. For the past four years, Ellie has served as the Regional Forester in New Mexico. In this position, she served as one of nine regional foresters in the agency and assumed leadership of 11 National Forests and 4 National Grasslands comprising more than 20 million acres of National Forest System lands in Arizona and New Mexico. Prior to this, Ellie was the Director of Lands for the Forest Service in Washington, DC and director of Lands, Soils, Water, and Minerals for the Rocky Mountain Region, headquartered in Denver, CO. She joined the Forest Service in 1978 and worked in a number of progressively responsible positions. She came to the Forest Service from the Bureau of Land Management. Ellie holds a bachelor's degree from the University of Illinois, a master's degree from the University of New Mexico, and a juris doctor degree from the University of Denver's College of Law. I am pleased and gratified that my work in the Senate has allowed me to get to know Ellie. We worked together in preserving the Valles Caldera National Preserve and in securing additional funding for hazardous fuels projects to reduce fire threats to communities adjacent to national forests. She also testified before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee several times and I can honestly say that she was one of the best witnesses the Forest Service has ever sent up here. Ellie's dedication and enthusiasm have provided the Forest Service with effective, professional management and direction. During her tenure, she has been successful in building strong relationships with many Forest Service partners and customers. In so doing, Ellie has garnered the respect, admiration and trust of here employees as well as all of those who have worked with her. She also promoted a collaborative stewardship in caring for the land and serving the people who own them. We will miss her, and I know that the Forest Service will miss her even more. The Forest Service and the nation owe Ellie Towns a great deal of gratitude for her fine work at the Forest Service, I wish her the best in all of her future endeavors.

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 hearing will take place on Tuesday, January 29, at 9:30 a.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the Enron collapse and its effect on energy markets. Those wishing to submit written statements on this subject should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Shirley Neff, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-6689 or Jonathan Black at 202/224-6672.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize and thank Denis Galvin, the Deputy Director of the National Park Service, who will be retiring at the end of this year after a career of almost 40 years with the Park Service. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has jurisdiction over national park issues, and we have been fortunate to have had the opportunity to work closely with Mr. Galvin over the years. Since beginning his tenure with the Park Service in 1963 as a civil engineer at Sequoia National Park, Mr. Galvin has held several positions with the Park Service throughout the country, including a period in the Southwest Regional Office in Santa Fe. He also worked for several years in Boston in the Northeast Regional Office, and as the Director of the Denver Services Center, the planning, design, and construction arm of the Park Service. Since 1985 Mr. Galvin has held two positions that brought him into frequent contact with the Congress and our Committee, as the Associate Director for Planning and Development from 1989 to 1997, and twice as the Deputy Director of the National Park Service, from 1985 to 1989, and again from 1997 until now. In his capacity as Associate Director and Deputy Director, Mr. Galvin has been involved in every major policy issue facing the National Park Service. He has been one of the National Park Service's greatest resources, and his knowledge and judgment about national park issues is very much respected, both within the agency and here in Congress. Whenever the Committee held a hearing on an especially important legislative issue affecting the National Park Service, we would often request that Mr. Galvin testify, so that the members of the Committee could benefit from his expertise and advice. Because of his broad and varied background, he could speak with as much knowledge on the merits of particular construction project within a park as he could on general policy issues affecting the entire park system. I would like to recognize his efforts, especially in his role in the National Park Service leadership, to maintain and protect the integrity of the National Park System. The Park Service has been fortunate to have had many strong and far-sighted leaders in its history. We have been extremely fortunate that Denis Galvin has continued in that great tradition. As he embarks on a new chapter in his life I would like to take this opportunity to thank Denny for all of his assistance to me and to other members of the Senate, and I extend my best wishes upon his retirement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Chafee, Rockefeller, Kennedy, Feingold, Corzine, Reed, Clinton, Kerry, and Kohl entitled the Medicare+Choice Consumer Protection Act is designed to ensure protections for Medicare+Choice beneficiaries that are witnessing increased costs, decreased benefits, and fewer options to obtain affordable supplemental coverage for Medicare. This legislation is a companion bill to H.R. 3267, legislation introduced by Representative Pete Stark. The Medicare+Choice program is an important option for many seniors and the disabled in this country, including 15 percent of seniors in the State of New Mexico. This option must remain a viable one in the Medicare program, but due to the recent rounds of plan withdrawals, benefit reductions, and cost increases that plans have undertaken within the program, there has been a growing level of insecurity among Medicare beneficiaries with respect to their health coverage. Last year, I sponsored legislation, S. 2905, the Medicare+Choice Program Improvement Act of 2000, to increase payments, including the minimum payment amount to Medicare+Choice plans. However, despite payment increases approved by the Congress last year, including some substantial increases in certain more rural areas of the country, we have witnessed over 530,000 people recently lose their Medicare+Choice coverage as a result of HMO pull-outs from the Medicare program, including some in areas that received these much higher payments. Many others have also experienced increases in their costs through the HMO or benefit reductions, including the elimination or substantial reduction of prescription drug coverage. Therefore, while we must continue to explore mechanisms to ensure that the Medicare+Choice program remains a viable one, it is clear that even if their push for higher payments is met that the plans may still choose to pull-out of areas, decrease benefits, or increase costs to seniors. Despite ads being run by some Medicare+Choice plans that they will provide ``health care for life,'' Medicare beneficiaries are seeing constant turmoil and change on a yearly basis. Some Medicare Beneficiaries have been dropped to have seen their benefits reduced or costs increased by HMO's on yearly basis since the creation of the Medicare+Choice program in 1997. In New Mexico, the result of last year's payment increases have resulted in a mixed outcome. Presbyterian's Medicare+Choice plan has reported that they are on track to achieve a profit margin of 3 to 4 percent on its M+C product in 2001 compared to a loss of around 15 percent in the prior year. In contrast, St. Joseph's M+C plan received the substantial increase in its Medicare payment, and yet, eliminated prescription drug coverage to seniors through its HMO without notice to some seniors this past March and still reports the system is up for sale and may completely change this coming year. Beneficiaries are often left confused and uncertain. As 96 year-old Beulah Torrez of Espanola, New Mexico, said after the last round of Medicare+Choice plan changes, ``I just finally gave up. I couldn't afford anything. I couldn't afford the HMOs.'' As we continue to seek ways to improve Medicare+Choice coverage, we should take immediate action to extend important consumer protections to Medicare beneficiaries who find themselves in a plan that no longer meets their needs. To achieve these goals, the bill we are introducing today would. (1) Eliminate the Medicare+Choice lock-in scheduled to go into effect in January 2002. (2) Extend the existing Medigap protections that apply to people whose Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from the program to anyone whose Medicare+Choice plan changes benefits or whose doctor or hospital leaves the plan. (3) Prevent Medicare+Choice plans from charging higher cost-sharing for a service than Medicare charges in the fee-for-service program. Eliminating the lock-in would ensure that seniors and people with disabilities continue to be allowed to leave a health plan that is not meeting their needs. When St. Joseph's health plan eliminated prescription drug coverage from its Medicare plan earlier this year, Medicare beneficiaries were left without drug coverage but were at least able to change their health plan at the end of the month. This flexibility will end in January 2002 unless this legislation is passed. It is important that Medicare beneficiaries, often our nation's most vulnerable citizens, know that if they test an HMO and do not like its system, arrangements and rules that they will be able to leave and choose a Medicare option that better suits their specific needs. Both advocates and the managed care industry support this provision. In addition, if a Medicare+Choice plan withdraws from a community or Medicare entirely, you can under current law move into a select category of Medigap plans, (A, B, C and F, without any individual health underwriting. this provision ensures that Medicare beneficiaries have affordable supplemental Medicare options available to them when, through no fault of their own, their Medicare+Choice plan withdrawals. However, these protections for Medicare beneficiaries currently do not apply with Medicare+Choice plans that make significant changes, such as eliminating benefits, increasing cost sharing, or changing available providers, within the HMO but stop short of completely withdrawing from the Medicare program. In the St. Joseph's case I mentioned above, seniors were unable to receive important Medigap or supplemental Medicare coverage since the plan did not completely withdraw from the service area. For Medicare beneficiaries whose needs no longer are met by the HMO due to such changes, a Medigap supplemental policy and a return to Medicare fee-for-service may often make better sense. Therefore, it is critical to extend the current Medigap protections for when a plan terminates Medicare participation to beneficiaries in plans that have made important changes to the benefits, cost sharing, or provider options. And finally, the third provision of the bill would prevent Medicare+Choice plans from charging higher cost-sharing for individual services than occurs in the Medicare fee-for-service program. According to testimony before the House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee by Thomas Scully, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, on December 4, 2001, . . . this year we have found that some plans proposed charging beneficiaries what we believed were unreasonably high copays for particular services . . . Thus, we have a new challenge balancing the need for plans to make decisions about their benefit packages and cost sharing amounts with the important requirement that plan designs do not discourage enrollment. The concern is always that high cost sharing could discourage beneficiaries, who have greater health care needs, from enrolling in or remaining a member of these particular plans. In the case of UnitedHealth Group's Medicare Complete option in Wisconsin, that plan will begin charging a deductible of $295 a day for a hospital stay up to a cap of $4,800 compared to a similar stay under fee-for-service Medicare which has a deductible of $812. While CMS did require the plan to reduce their proposed deductible from $350 to $295 per day, overall out-of-pocket costs can far exceed those that would occur in fee-for-service for many beneficiaries. As Stephanie Sue Stein, Director of the Milwaukee County Department on Aging, said at the same House Ways and Means Health Subcommittee hearing on December 4, 2001, Beneficiaries will still be expected to pay up to $4,800 out-of-pocket in addition to the $55 monthly premium for United's coverage and the $54 monthly premium for Medicare Part B. The excessive cost-sharing proposed by United raises questions about the value of this so-called insurance. It is now clear that many of the 16,000 seniors who have previously relied on UnitedHealthcare to provide access to affordable health care can no longer do so. It looks to us as though the benefit changes for 2002 are designed to discourage enrollment to beneficiaries who have health needs. The question arises why we would allow Medicare+Choice plans to effectively diminish the value of Medicare benefits in this manner. While the Secretary has the authority under current law to prohibit or reduce some of the new cost-sharing arrangements that plans are preparing to impose, the change proposed by this legislation makes it clear that Medicare+Choice plans cannot charge patients more for a service than the patient would face under the Medicare fee-for-service plan. In fact, the ability of Medicare+Choice plans to charge higher cost- sharing for benefits or services than in fee-for-service results in further risk avoidance, or what is referred to as ``cherry picking,'' as plans seek to avoid or deny services to the chronically or severely ill. This can have an adverse consequence for the health of people with disabilities, limit their choices, and result in higher costs for the Medicare program. For all of these reasons, we should enact this provision in short order. While we are undertaking efforts to ensure that Medicare-Choice remains a viable option for Medicare beneficiaries, we must also ensure additional protections for beneficiaries. As Ms. Stein said in her testimony, These plans now call themselves new things, complete and secure and healthy, but they are not complete or secure or healthy. They are radically different. These Medicare+Choice policies are not the same ones people bought when they took advantage of what they perceived to be the value-added benefits sold to them as Medicare+Choice. In fact, they are left with Medicare minus protection, Medicare minus the ability to buy a Medigap policy, Medicare minus the ability to choose different insurance. In fact, according to a report by the Commonwealth Fund in April 2001, ``31 percent of Medicare+Choice enrollees are in contracts where the basic plan has a copayment requirement for hospital admissions, compared with just 13 percent in 2000. Outpatient hospital copayments are being required of 45 percent of Medicare+Choice enrollees in 2001, compared with only 29 percent in 2000.'' This will only increase further in 2002. Therefore, to improve fundamental financial protections and health care options for our nation's Medicare seniors and disabled enrollees, I urge the swift passage of this legislation. The following organizations have expressed their support for this legislation: AFSCME Retiree Program, Alliance for Retired Americans, American Association of Homes and Service for the Aging, American Association for International Aging, American Federation of Teachers Program on Retirement and Retirees, American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, Association for Gerontology and Human Development in Historically Black Colleges and Universities, B'nai B'rith Center for Senior Housing and Services, California Health Advocates, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Congress of California Seniors, Eldercare America, Families USA, International Union--UAW, National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers, National Association of Retired and Senior Volunteer Program Directors, National Association of Retired Federal Employees, National Association of Senior Companion Program Directors, National Association of State Units on Aging, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, National Council on the Aging, National Renal Administrators Association, National Senior Citizens Law Center, and OWL--Voice for Midlife and Older Women. I request unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.