Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, due to a jurisdiction concern raised with the committee referral of S. 535, I am reintroducing the Native American Breast and Cervical Cancer Treatment Technical Amendment Act of 2001 today with Senator McCain and 23 other bipartisan cosponsors. To ensure the availability of life-saving breast and cervical cancer treatment to American Indian and Alaska Native women, I urge the bill's immediate passage. I request unanimous consent that a fact sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, that will significantly help employees get better advice on how to invest their 401(k) plans. The Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001 removes an existing impediment that prevents employers from offering this needed information to their employees. This legislation was carefully prepared with input and consultation with affected groups and interested stakeholders and is supported by the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, the American Society of Pension Actuaries, ASPA, Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, CIEBA, the Financial Planning Association, FPA, and the Small Business Council of America, SBCA. Over the past several years, the demand by 401(k) plan participants for individualized investment advice has been growing, yet less than a third of employers offer this service. Primarily, employers do not offer this invaluable resource due to concerns about being responsible and ultimately liable for the selection and monitoring of an investment adviser. In general, current law relieves employers of their liability for the actual investment decisions made by their employees in a 401(k) plan. It is therefore illogical to make employers liable for providing their employees with sound, independent investment advice when we have intentionally shifted the burden to employees to invest their retirement funds wisely. The creation of a safe harbor for offering qualified independent investment advisers will remove this inconsistency and facilitate the flow of reliable, informed advice to employees. The Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001 creates a safe harbor for plan sponsors by giving them clear guidance as to what is necessary to ensure that they will not have liability for the selection and monitoring of qualified investment advisers. Employers will be deemed to have satisfied their fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA with respect to the selection and monitoring of qualified investment advisers, provided they meet the following strict criteria. First, the employer must contract with qualified investment advisers. Entities such as Federal and most State registered investment advisers, banks and insurance companies will be deemed to be qualified providers of investment advice provided the individual actually offering the advice is a registered investment adviser, registered representative or a registered broker or dealer. The Secretary of Labor has the authority to expand this category for other comparably qualified entities and individuals. Next, the investment adviser must verify in writing that it has met several standards. The investment adviser must state that it is currently qualified as defined above and acknowledge that it is a fiduciary and as such, solely responsible for the information provided to the participants. The investment adviser must also review the plan documents, including investment options, and guarantee that the relationship with the investment adviser will not be in violation of any existing prohibited transaction rules under ERISA. It must also provide documentation that it has the necessary insurance coverage, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, for potential claims by plan participants. Finally, before hiring the investment adviser, the plan sponsor must review the verification as previously described from the investment advisor. It must also review the investment adviser's fee structure and contract. Finally, it must review the Uniform Application for Investment Registration as filed with SEC or comparable filing with the Department of Labor. After reviewing all of these documents, the adviser must determine that there is no material reason to not enter into a contract with the investment advisor. The plan sponsor has a continuous duty to investigate the investment adviser if information is brought to its attention questioning whether the adviser remains qualified or if a significant number of employees register complaints. Based on this review the plan sponsor must determine whether or not to continue using the investment adviser's services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in advancing this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation with my colleague from Maine, Senator Collins, that will significantly help employees get better advice on how to invest their 401(k) plans. The Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001 removes an existing impediment that prevents employers from offering this needed information to their employees. This legislation was carefully prepared with input and consultation with affected groups and interested stakeholders and is supported by the American Association of Retired Persons, AARP, the American Society of Pension Actuaries, ASPA, Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, CIEBA, the Financial Planning Association, FPA, and the Small Business Council of America, SBCA. Over the past several years, the demand by 401(k) plan participants for individualized investment advice has been growing, yet less than a third of employers offer this service. Primarily, employers do not offer this invaluable resource due to concerns about being responsible and ultimately liable for the selection and monitoring of an investment adviser. In general, current law relieves employers of their liability for the actual investment decisions made by their employees in a 401(k) plan. It is therefore illogical to make employers liable for providing their employees with sound, independent investment advice when we have intentionally shifted the burden to employees to invest their retirement funds wisely. The creation of a safe harbor for offering qualified independent investment advisers will remove this inconsistency and facilitate the flow of reliable, informed advice to employees. The Independent Investment Advice Act of 2001 creates a safe harbor for plan sponsors by giving them clear guidance as to what is necessary to ensure that they will not have liability for the selection and monitoring of qualified investment advisers. Employers will be deemed to have satisfied their fiduciary responsibilities under ERISA with respect to the selection and monitoring of qualified investment advisers, provided they meet the following strict criteria. First, the employer must contract with qualified investment advisers. Entities such as Federal and most State registered investment advisers, banks and insurance companies will be deemed to be qualified providers of investment advice provided the individual actually offering the advice is a registered investment adviser, registered representative or a registered broker or dealer. The Secretary of Labor has the authority to expand this category for other comparably qualified entities and individuals. Next, the investment adviser must verify in writing that it has met several standards. The investment adviser must state that it is currently qualified as defined above and acknowledge that it is a fiduciary and as such, solely responsible for the information provided to the participants. The investment adviser must also review the plan documents, including investment options, and guarantee that the relationship with the investment adviser will not be in violation of any existing prohibited transaction rules under ERISA. It must also provide documentation that it has the necessary insurance coverage, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, for potential claims by plan participants. Finally, before hiring the investment adviser, the plan sponsor must review the verification as previously described from the investment advisor. It must also review the investment adviser's fee structure and contract. Finally, it must review the Uniform Application for Investment Registration as filed with SEC or comparable filing with the Department of Labor. After reviewing all of these documents, the adviser must determine that there is no material reason to not enter into a contract with the investment advisor. The plan sponsor has a continuous duty to investigate the investment adviser if information is brought to its attention questioning whether the adviser remains qualified or if a significant number of employees register complaints. Based on this review the plan sponsor must determine whether or not to continue using the investment adviser's services. I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in advancing this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will enhance the future economic vitality of communities in Union and Colfax Counties and throughout all of Northeastern New Mexico. By improving the transportation infrastructure, I believe this legislation will also help promote tourism across all of northern New Mexico. The bill we are introducing today completes the designation of the route for the Ports-to-Plains High Priority Corridor, which runs 1,000 miles from Laredo, Texas, to Denver, CO. I am honored to have my colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor of the bill. 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 will more readily attract out-of-state visitors and new jobs. Travelers prefer the safety of a four-lane highway rather than sharing a two-lane road with a large number of semi tractor-trailer rigs. In 1998, Congress identified the Ports-to-Plains corridor between the border with Mexico to Denver, CO, as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System. This designation arose in part as a result of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Under NAFTA, commercial border traffic is already increasing, and the Ports-to-Plains corridor was considered to be centrally situated to serve international trade and promote economic development along its entire route. Congress had previously designated a parallel route, the Camino Real Corridor, including Interstate Highway 25 through central New Mexico, as a high priority corridor; this corridor runs from the Mexican border at El Paso, TX, through Albuquerque and Denver, and on to the Canadian border. Last year, a comprehensive study was undertaken to determine the feasibility of creating a second continuous four-lane highway along the proposed Ports-to-Plains High Priority corridor. Alternative highway alignments for the trade corridor were developed and evaluated. The study was conducted under the direction of a steering committee consisting of the State departments of transportation in Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Colorado. The Ports-to-Plains feasibility study was completed and a final report circulated earlier this year. With the results of the feasibility study in hand, representatives of the four State highway departments met on July 30 to reach consensus on the preferred designation for the northern portion of the Ports-to- Plains corridor between Dumas, TX, and Denver, CO. The four representatives agreed to recommend designating the route north of Dumas, TX, along U.S. Highway 287 through Boise City, OK, to Limon, CO, and then along Interstate 70 to Denver. They also recommended including the route from Dumas, TX, along U.S. Highway 87 through Clayton, NM, to Raton in the corridor. I am pleased the four States were able to come to a unified consensus on the route for the Ports-to-Plains corridor. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from the directors of the four State highway departments to the Federal Highway Administration summarizing the four-State consensus recommendation be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. I do believe the consensus recommendation is a good result for all four States in the region. Both New Mexico and Texas plan to upgrade their portion of the corridor to the full four lanes envisioned in the feasibility study for the Ports-to-Plains trade corridor. Indeed, the State of Texas will soon begin construction that will four-lane its portion of Highway 87 from Dumas to the New Mexico State line. Meanwhile, Colorado plans to develop it's portion as a super-two-lane highway at a cost of $537 million. The estimated cost to four-lane New Mexico's 81 miles of the corridor between Clayton and Raton is $185 million. I do believe that once Highway 87 has been upgraded to four lanes between Dumas and Raton, the route will act as a magnet for out-of- state visitors to the year-round tourist attractions throughout northern New Mexico. Tourists in particular will prefer the safety and a convenience of a four-lane highway. Congress designated the southern portion of the Ports-to-Plains corridor last year. Now the feasibility study has been completed and all four States are in unanimous agreement on the preferred route for the northern portion. The time to act is now. Congress should move quickly to confirm the four-state consensus of the Ports-to-Plains Trade Corridor by passing our bill. I look forward to working with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Jeffords and the Ranking Member, Senator Smith, to confirm the four states' recommendation with this non-controversial, bipartisan legislation. Once the route is established, I am committed to working to help secure the funding required to complete the four-lane upgrade as soon as possible. I do believe the four-lane upgrade of Highway 87 is vital to economic development for the communities of Raton and Clayton and throughout all of northeast New Mexico. I again thank Senator Domenici for cosponsoring the bill, and I hope all Senators will join us in support of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and the previously referenced letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that an oversight hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, November 14, 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 investigative report of the Thirtymile Fire and the prevention of future fire fatalities. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should e-mail it to shelley__brown@energy.senate.gov or fax it to 202-224-4340. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the committee staff at (202) 224-8164.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a nomination hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, November 14, 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 nomination of Kathleen Clarke to be Director of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should e-mail it to Sam__Fowler@Energy.Sen- ate.Gov or fax it to 202-224-9026. For further information, please call Sam Fowler on 202/224-7571. Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Cochran, Daschle, Lincoln, Collins, Carnahan, Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Corzine entitled the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' is designed to improve the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children through Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, the Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of community health centers. The oral health problems facing children are highlighted in a landmark report issued by the Surgeon General and the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, last year entitled Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General in which he observed that our Nation is facing what amounts to ``a `silent epidemic' of dental and oral diseases.'' In fact, dental caries, which refers to both decayed teeth or filled cavities, is the most common childhood disease. According to the Surgeon General, ``Among 5- to 17-year olds, dental caries is more than 5 times as common as a reported history of asthma and 7 times as common as hay fever.'' In short, dental care is, as the Surgeon General adds, ``the most prevalent unmet health need among American children.'' The severity of this problem is even greater among children is poverty. Poor children aged 2 to 9 have twice the levels of untreated decayed teeth as nonpoor children. Moreover, the Surgeon General has found that poor Mexican American children have rates of untreated decayed teeth that exceed 70 percent, a rate of true epidemic proportions. For these children, their personal suffering is real. Many of the oral diseases and disorders can cause severe pain, undermine self- esteem and self-image, discourage normal social interaction, cause other health problems, compromise nutritional status, and lead to chronic stress and depression as well as incur great financial cost. Lack of treatment is estimated to result in a loss of 1.6 million school days annually, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The General Accounting Office, GAO, in its April 2000 report, entitled ``Oral Health: Dental Disease is a Chronic Problem Among Low- Income Populations,'' adds, ``Poor children suffer nearly 12 times more restricted-activity days, such as missed school, than higher-income children as a result of dental problems.'' Incredibly, this could all be prevented. As the Surgeon General's report notes, prevention programs in oral health that have been designed and evaluated for children using a variety of fluoride and dental sealant strategies has the ``potential of virtually eliminating dental caries in all children.'' Unfortunately, children do not get the dental services they need. According to the Surgeon General,'' Although over 14 percent of children under 18 have no form of private or public medical insurance, more than twice that many, 23 million children, have no dental insurance.'' The report adds, ``There are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance for each child without medical insurance.'' One important provision in the bill would grant States flexibility to provide dental coverage to low-income children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, just as States currently are able to do through Medicaid. Unfortunately, SCHIP law prohibits coverage of children for services unless they are completely uninsured. As authors Ruth Almeida, Ian Hill, and Genevieve Kenney of an Urban Institute report entitled Does SCHIP Spell Better Dental Care for Children? An Early Look at New Initiatives write, ``. . . many low-income children are covered by employer-based or other private health insurance for their medical care, but do not have a comprehensive dental benefit. Because these children are privately insured, they are not eligible for SCHIP and cannot avail themselves of dental coverage under SCHIP. Expanding SCHIP to furnish dental services on a wraparound basis to privately covered low-income children without dental coverage could help achieve broader improvements in children's oral health.'' For low-income children with medical coverage but no dental insurance through the private sector, their only option would be to completely dump their private coverage for their children in order to access SCHIP coverage. Instead, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' would create an option for states to provide low-income families with the ability to receive wrap-around dental coverage through SCHIP without having to completely drop their private insurance. This reduces the crowd-out of private insurance, which was a priority of the Congress during passage of SCHIP, and it provides low-income children with dental services that other children in the same economic circumstance are already receiving through SCHIP. In implementing such a change, I want to make it clear that I am in strong support of providing additional funding to SCHIP to ensure that these services are provided without reducing current levels of SCHIP funding. I am concerned about SCHIP funding in forthcoming years, particularly in those years referred to as the ``CHIP dip'' when funding levels drop from over $4 billion annually to around $3 billion. I have other legislation entitled, S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001,'' that addresses this very problem. With those additional funds, I strongly believe that SCHIP, just as Medicaid, should provide services to low-income children who are both uninsured and underinsured. Children need a comprehensive set of child health services, including dental services, to ensure their appropriate health and development. However, coverage for these services is often not enough. Even when children do have dental coverage, the access to care is often sorely lacking. Medicaid is the largest insurer of dental coverage to children. Yet, despite the design of the Medicaid program to ensure access to comprehensive services for children, including dental care, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows that no State provides preventive services to more than 50 percent of eligible children. The factors are complex but the primary one is due to limited dentist participation in Medicaid. According to GAO, in its September 2000 report entitled Oral Health: Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental Services by Low-Income Populations, ``Of 39 states that provided information about dentists' participation in Medicaid, 23 reported that fewer than half of the states' dentists saw at least one Medicaid patient during 1999.'' Even worse, a 1998 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures indicates that fewer than 20 percent of dentists participate in the Medicaid program nationwide. The GAO concludes poor participation rates by dentists is due in large part to poor reimbursement rates in Medicaid. As the GAO points out, ``Our analysis showed that Medicaid payment rates are often well below dentists' normal fees. Only 13 states had Medicaid rates that exceeded two-thirds of the average regional fees dentists charged. . . .'' Clearly, Medicaid is chronically underfunded with respect to dental care. The Surgeon General's report notes, ``On average, state Medicaid agencies contribute only 2.3 percent of their child health expenditures to dental care, whereas nationally, the percentage of all child health expenditures dedicated to dental care is more than 10 times that rate, almost 30 percent.'' The good news is that many States, including New Mexico, are taking actions to improve the participation of dentists in the Medicaid program by raising low payment rates and reducing administrative requirements. These efforts were highlighted by the GAO in its September 2000 report. To further encourage such efforts, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides $50 million annually as financial incentives and planning grants to states to undertake additional improvements in their Medicaid programs delivery of dental health services to children. In addition to Medicaid and SCHIP, the federal government administers other health care programs providing dental services or providers for low-income children and their families, including services administered by community health centers and the Indian Health Service, IHS. Unfortunately, both of these programs are underfunded and, as the GAO found, ``report difficulty in meeting the dental needs of their target populations.'' For example, the GAO found that ``HHS and health center officials report that the demand for dental services significantly exceeds the, urban and rural health, centers' capacity to deliver it. In 1998 . . ., a little more than half of the nearly 700 health center grantees funded under this program had active dental programs.'' This is also true for public health departments across the country. To assist the health centers and public health departments with this need, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides $40 million to community health centers and public health departments to expand dental health services through the hiring of additional dental health professionals to serve low-income populations. This is particularly a problem that needs to be addressed in areas with severe dental health professional shortages, such as New Mexico. For example, New Mexico ranked next to last in the Nation with just 32.1 dentists per 100,000 population in 1998, according to HHS. This compares to the national average of 48.4 per 100,000. Moreover, the number of dentists in New Mexico declined by 7 percent between 1991 and 1998 while the State's population grew 12 percent. The result was a 17 percent decline in dentists per capita during the period. With regard to American Indian and Alaska Native populations, the need is so great and the funding so little that a comprehensive solution is requiring throughout the IHS system. With respect to the unmet need, the GAO notes that ``American Indian and Alaska Native children aged 2 to 4 years old have five times the rate of dental decay that all children have.'' Unfortunately, the GAO adds, ``. . . about one-fourth of IHS' dentist positions at 269 HIS and tribal facilities were vacant in April 2000. Vacancies have been chronic at IHS facilities, in the past 5 years, at least 67 facilities have had one or more dentist position vacant for at least a year. According to IHS officials, the primary reason for these vacancies is that IHS is unable to provide a competitive salary for new dentists. . .'' The GAO continues, ``The IHS' dental personnel shortages translate into a large unmet need for dental services among American Indians and Alaska Natives. IHS reports that only 24 percent of the eligible population had a dental visit in 1998. The personnel shortages have also reduced the scope of services that facilities are able to provide. According to IHS officials, available services have concentrated more on acute and emergency care, while routine and restorative care have dropped as a percentage of workload. Emergency services increased from one-fifth of the workload in 1990 to more than one-third of the workload in 1999.' To help alleviate this workforce shortage, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides IHS with the authority to offer multi-year retention bonuses to dental providers offering services through the IHS and tribal programs. The bill also provides for some technical amendments to ensure that tribal organizations and community health centers are allowed to apply for school-based dental sealant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. And finally, to help address this ``silent epidemic,'' HHS implemented what is referred to as the Oral Health Initiative, OHI, to coordinate dental health services in both the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, CMS, formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration. Despite the progress of the Initiative, it has no legal authority unlike other programs that target specific health needs of children, such as Emergency Medical Services for Children or the Traumatic Brain Injury Program. Because it lacks formal status and program control, the OHI is susceptible to future disruptions or dispanding. To ensure the continuation of the OHI, the ``Children's Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides statutory authority for the OHI and authorized funding of $25 million to improve the oral health of low- income populations served by both the public and private sector. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today would improve the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children through Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, the Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of community health centers. These problems are well-documented and call out for congressional action as soon as possible. I would like to thank the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Dental Hygienists' Association, and the Children's Dental Health Project for their outstanding support and/or their technical advice on this legislation. This bill is a result of their outstanding work. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Burt Edelstein and Libby Mullin of the Children's Dental Health Project for their vast knowledge and technical assistance on this issue. I want to thank Judy Sherman of the American Dental Association, Myla Moss of the American Dental Education Association, Dr. Heber Simmons and Scott Litch of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Karen Sealander of the American Dental Hygienists' Association, and Heather Mizeur of the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., for their valuable insight, technical advice, and support for this legislation. I look forward to working with them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care for our children. In addition to those organizations, I would like to thank the following groups for their support of the bill, including: Academy of General Dentistry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, American Association of Dental Research, American Association of Endodontists, American Association of Public Health Dentistry, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, American Association of Women Dentists, American College of Dentists, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Dental Trade Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Dentistry for Children, American Student Dental Association, Association of Clinicians of the Underserved, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, Dental Dealers of America, Dental Manufacturers of America, Inc., Family Voices, Hispanic Dental Association, International College of Dentists, USA, March of Dimes, National Association of City and County Health Officers, National Association of Local Boards of Health, National Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico Department of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of American Indian Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United Cerebral Palsy Associations. I request unanimous consent that a Fact Sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Cochran, Daschle, Lincoln, Collins, Carnahan, Hutchinson of Arkansas, and Corzine entitled the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' is designed to improve the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children through Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, the Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of community health centers. The oral health problems facing children are highlighted in a landmark report issued by the Surgeon General and the Department of Health and Human Services, HHS, last year entitled Oral Health in America: A Report of the Surgeon General in which he observed that our Nation is facing what amounts to ``a `silent epidemic' of dental and oral diseases.'' In fact, dental caries, which refers to both decayed teeth or filled cavities, is the most common childhood disease. According to the Surgeon General, ``Among 5- to 17-year olds, dental caries is more than 5 times as common as a reported history of asthma and 7 times as common as hay fever.'' In short, dental care is, as the Surgeon General adds, ``the most prevalent unmet health need among American children.'' The severity of this problem is even greater among children is poverty. Poor children aged 2 to 9 have twice the levels of untreated decayed teeth as nonpoor children. Moreover, the Surgeon General has found that poor Mexican American children have rates of untreated decayed teeth that exceed 70 percent, a rate of true epidemic proportions. For these children, their personal suffering is real. Many of the oral diseases and disorders can cause severe pain, undermine self- esteem and self-image, discourage normal social interaction, cause other health problems, compromise nutritional status, and lead to chronic stress and depression as well as incur great financial cost. Lack of treatment is estimated to result in a loss of 1.6 million school days annually, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. The General Accounting Office, GAO, in its April 2000 report, entitled ``Oral Health: Dental Disease is a Chronic Problem Among Low- Income Populations,'' adds, ``Poor children suffer nearly 12 times more restricted-activity days, such as missed school, than higher-income children as a result of dental problems.'' Incredibly, this could all be prevented. As the Surgeon General's report notes, prevention programs in oral health that have been designed and evaluated for children using a variety of fluoride and dental sealant strategies has the ``potential of virtually eliminating dental caries in all children.'' Unfortunately, children do not get the dental services they need. According to the Surgeon General,'' Although over 14 percent of children under 18 have no form of private or public medical insurance, more than twice that many, 23 million children, have no dental insurance.'' The report adds, ``There are at least 2.6 children without dental insurance for each child without medical insurance.'' One important provision in the bill would grant States flexibility to provide dental coverage to low-income children through the State Children's Health Insurance Program, just as States currently are able to do through Medicaid. Unfortunately, SCHIP law prohibits coverage of children for services unless they are completely uninsured. As authors Ruth Almeida, Ian Hill, and Genevieve Kenney of an Urban Institute report entitled Does SCHIP Spell Better Dental Care for Children? An Early Look at New Initiatives write, ``. . . many low-income children are covered by employer-based or other private health insurance for their medical care, but do not have a comprehensive dental benefit. Because these children are privately insured, they are not eligible for SCHIP and cannot avail themselves of dental coverage under SCHIP. Expanding SCHIP to furnish dental services on a wraparound basis to privately covered low-income children without dental coverage could help achieve broader improvements in children's oral health.'' For low-income children with medical coverage but no dental insurance through the private sector, their only option would be to completely dump their private coverage for their children in order to access SCHIP coverage. Instead, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' would create an option for states to provide low-income families with the ability to receive wrap-around dental coverage through SCHIP without having to completely drop their private insurance. This reduces the crowd-out of private insurance, which was a priority of the Congress during passage of SCHIP, and it provides low-income children with dental services that other children in the same economic circumstance are already receiving through SCHIP. In implementing such a change, I want to make it clear that I am in strong support of providing additional funding to SCHIP to ensure that these services are provided without reducing current levels of SCHIP funding. I am concerned about SCHIP funding in forthcoming years, particularly in those years referred to as the ``CHIP dip'' when funding levels drop from over $4 billion annually to around $3 billion. I have other legislation entitled, S. 1016, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001,'' that addresses this very problem. With those additional funds, I strongly believe that SCHIP, just as Medicaid, should provide services to low-income children who are both uninsured and underinsured. Children need a comprehensive set of child health services, including dental services, to ensure their appropriate health and development. However, coverage for these services is often not enough. Even when children do have dental coverage, the access to care is often sorely lacking. Medicaid is the largest insurer of dental coverage to children. Yet, despite the design of the Medicaid program to ensure access to comprehensive services for children, including dental care, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reported in 1996 that only 18 percent of children eligible for Medicaid received even a single preventive dental service. The same report shows that no State provides preventive services to more than 50 percent of eligible children. The factors are complex but the primary one is due to limited dentist participation in Medicaid. According to GAO, in its September 2000 report entitled Oral Health: Factors Contributing to Low Use of Dental Services by Low-Income Populations, ``Of 39 states that provided information about dentists' participation in Medicaid, 23 reported that fewer than half of the states' dentists saw at least one Medicaid patient during 1999.'' Even worse, a 1998 survey by the National Conference of State Legislatures indicates that fewer than 20 percent of dentists participate in the Medicaid program nationwide. The GAO concludes poor participation rates by dentists is due in large part to poor reimbursement rates in Medicaid. As the GAO points out, ``Our analysis showed that Medicaid payment rates are often well below dentists' normal fees. Only 13 states had Medicaid rates that exceeded two-thirds of the average regional fees dentists charged. . . .'' Clearly, Medicaid is chronically underfunded with respect to dental care. The Surgeon General's report notes, ``On average, state Medicaid agencies contribute only 2.3 percent of their child health expenditures to dental care, whereas nationally, the percentage of all child health expenditures dedicated to dental care is more than 10 times that rate, almost 30 percent.'' The good news is that many States, including New Mexico, are taking actions to improve the participation of dentists in the Medicaid program by raising low payment rates and reducing administrative requirements. These efforts were highlighted by the GAO in its September 2000 report. To further encourage such efforts, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides $50 million annually as financial incentives and planning grants to states to undertake additional improvements in their Medicaid programs delivery of dental health services to children. In addition to Medicaid and SCHIP, the federal government administers other health care programs providing dental services or providers for low-income children and their families, including services administered by community health centers and the Indian Health Service, IHS. Unfortunately, both of these programs are underfunded and, as the GAO found, ``report difficulty in meeting the dental needs of their target populations.'' For example, the GAO found that ``HHS and health center officials report that the demand for dental services significantly exceeds the, urban and rural health, centers' capacity to deliver it. In 1998 . . ., a little more than half of the nearly 700 health center grantees funded under this program had active dental programs.'' This is also true for public health departments across the country. To assist the health centers and public health departments with this need, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides $40 million to community health centers and public health departments to expand dental health services through the hiring of additional dental health professionals to serve low-income populations. This is particularly a problem that needs to be addressed in areas with severe dental health professional shortages, such as New Mexico. For example, New Mexico ranked next to last in the Nation with just 32.1 dentists per 100,000 population in 1998, according to HHS. This compares to the national average of 48.4 per 100,000. Moreover, the number of dentists in New Mexico declined by 7 percent between 1991 and 1998 while the State's population grew 12 percent. The result was a 17 percent decline in dentists per capita during the period. With regard to American Indian and Alaska Native populations, the need is so great and the funding so little that a comprehensive solution is requiring throughout the IHS system. With respect to the unmet need, the GAO notes that ``American Indian and Alaska Native children aged 2 to 4 years old have five times the rate of dental decay that all children have.'' Unfortunately, the GAO adds, ``. . . about one-fourth of IHS' dentist positions at 269 HIS and tribal facilities were vacant in April 2000. Vacancies have been chronic at IHS facilities, in the past 5 years, at least 67 facilities have had one or more dentist position vacant for at least a year. According to IHS officials, the primary reason for these vacancies is that IHS is unable to provide a competitive salary for new dentists. . .'' The GAO continues, ``The IHS' dental personnel shortages translate into a large unmet need for dental services among American Indians and Alaska Natives. IHS reports that only 24 percent of the eligible population had a dental visit in 1998. The personnel shortages have also reduced the scope of services that facilities are able to provide. According to IHS officials, available services have concentrated more on acute and emergency care, while routine and restorative care have dropped as a percentage of workload. Emergency services increased from one-fifth of the workload in 1990 to more than one-third of the workload in 1999.' To help alleviate this workforce shortage, the ``Children's Dental Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides IHS with the authority to offer multi-year retention bonuses to dental providers offering services through the IHS and tribal programs. The bill also provides for some technical amendments to ensure that tribal organizations and community health centers are allowed to apply for school-based dental sealant funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC. And finally, to help address this ``silent epidemic,'' HHS implemented what is referred to as the Oral Health Initiative, OHI, to coordinate dental health services in both the Health Resources and Services Administration, HRSA, and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services, CMS, formerly known as the Health Care Financing Administration. Despite the progress of the Initiative, it has no legal authority unlike other programs that target specific health needs of children, such as Emergency Medical Services for Children or the Traumatic Brain Injury Program. Because it lacks formal status and program control, the OHI is susceptible to future disruptions or dispanding. To ensure the continuation of the OHI, the ``Children's Health Improvement Act of 2001'' provides statutory authority for the OHI and authorized funding of $25 million to improve the oral health of low- income populations served by both the public and private sector. The bipartisan legislation I am introducing today would improve the access and delivery of dental health services to our Nation's children through Medicaid, the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, the Indian Health Service, IHS, and our Nation's safety net of community health centers. These problems are well-documented and call out for congressional action as soon as possible. I would like to thank the American Dental Association, the American Dental Education Association, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Dental Hygienists' Association, and the Children's Dental Health Project for their outstanding support and/or their technical advice on this legislation. This bill is a result of their outstanding work. In particular, I want to thank Dr. Burt Edelstein and Libby Mullin of the Children's Dental Health Project for their vast knowledge and technical assistance on this issue. I want to thank Judy Sherman of the American Dental Association, Myla Moss of the American Dental Education Association, Dr. Heber Simmons and Scott Litch of the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, Karen Sealander of the American Dental Hygienists' Association, and Heather Mizeur of the National Association of Community Health Centers, Inc., for their valuable insight, technical advice, and support for this legislation. I look forward to working with them all to ensure that we achieve increased access to oral health care for our children. In addition to those organizations, I would like to thank the following groups for their support of the bill, including: Academy of General Dentistry, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, American Academy of Periodontology, American Association of Dental Examiners, American Association of Dental Research, American Association of Endodontists, American Association of Public Health Dentistry, American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, American Association of Orthodontists, American Association of Women Dentists, American College of Dentists, American College of Preventive Medicine, American Dental Trade Association, American Public Health Association, American Society of Dentistry for Children, American Student Dental Association, Association of Clinicians of the Underserved, Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Association of State and Territorial Dental Directors, Dental Dealers of America, Dental Manufacturers of America, Inc., Family Voices, Hispanic Dental Association, International College of Dentists, USA, March of Dimes, National Association of City and County Health Officers, National Association of Local Boards of Health, National Dental Association, National Health Law Program, New Mexico Department of Health, Partnership for Prevention, Society of American Indian Dentists, Special Care Dentistry, and United Cerebral Palsy Associations. I request unanimous consent that a Fact Sheet and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Jeffords, Leahy, and Murray entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses an inequity that was created during the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill. While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and ``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new CHIP funding for the children of their respective states, the legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico. This had the effect of penalizing a certain group of states for having done the right thing. As a result, the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses this inequity by allowing four States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Rhode Island, to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of children covered by Medicaid above their 1996 levels, putting them on a more level field with all other States in the country. Mr. President, as you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and provide $48 billion over 10 years as an incentive to States to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent of poverty or beyond. During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain states were already undertaking Medicaid or separate state-run expansions of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania to convert their separate state-run programs into CHIP expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding for their expansions. Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for their expansions. This created an inequity among the states where some were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP and others were denied. Again, our bill addresses this inequity. New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 percent of poverty, above the level of the vast majority of states across the country. Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated $182 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2000, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $5 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend only 3 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP as other comparable States were. The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 129,000 uninsured children. In other words, almost 22 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the fourth highest rate of uninsured children in the country. This is a result of the fact that an estimated 103,000 of the 129,000 uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are, consequently, eligible for Medicaid but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need. Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many states are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico. As the most recent policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative States not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their States.'' Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, including Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they receive the health coverage for which they are eligible. The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children, just as other States across the country are doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I greatly appreciate this commitment. These are almost 20 HSIs in my home state and these schools desperately need additional funds to assist in the provision of a high quality education to the fastest-growing minority population. I yield to my colleague Senator Kennedy who has shown tremendous leadership on issues related to education generally and has led the fight for improved services for disadvantaged students in our country. I thank him for his support.

Mr. BINGAMAN. If my colleagues will allow me to discuss this a little further, Senator Kennedy and I would like to ask a few more questions. It is my understanding that, at the request of Senator Hutchison, the Senators have agreed to work with their colleagues in the House during conference negotiations to further increase funding for Hispanic Serving Institutions to $81.5 million?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I, too, thank the chairman, ranking member, and Senator Hutchison, and I look forward to continuing to work with all of them and others, including the members of our bipartisan Senate Hispanic- serving Institution Coalition, to continue to grow the ability of this program to serve communities across our country. I yield the floor. TRIO Programs

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the chairman. A substantial increase for bilingual education is particularly important for my home State and your willingness to continue to work on increasing funds for this program is appreciated. In New Mexico, there are almost 70,000 LEP students--over 20 percent of our total student population the national average is 7.8 percent and only California has a larger percentage of LEP students--24 percent. I should note that this program also is essential to our Native American population. For many Native Americans, English is a second language. These students need educational programs that help preserve their native language while helping them to gain greater proficiency in English and to achieve in core academic subjects. I also am pleased that we will be able to triple funding for the dropout prevention program that I sponsored in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In my home State, the annual Hispanic dropout rate was more than twice that of non-Hispanic whites in 1999. This program will provide funds to implement proven, research-based dropout prevention strategies and will help provide greater national coordination in our dropout prevention efforts. I again express my thanks to Senators Harkin and Specter for their support on this amendment and for their tremendous efforts on this bill. I am also grateful to the Majority Leader, Senator Daschle, and to Senator Kennedy for their support with respect to this amendment. Education

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I take this opportunity to thank Chairman Harkin and Senator Specter for including in the managers' package an amendment that I sponsored with Senators Daschle, Kennedy, Kerry, and Murray related to education programs particularly important to Hispanics in my State and to the Hispanic community nationally. This amendment will increase funding for Bilingual education programs by $100 million, provide an additional $3 million for the High School Equivalency Program, $5 million for the College Assistance Migrant Program, $58 million for GEARUP, $5 million for dropout prevention, $4 million for Hispanic Serving Institutions, and $25 million for the Migrant Education Program. Hispanics are the fastest growing minority group in the United States and they are projected to contribute two-thirds to the growth in the size of the high-school-age population over the next decade. Unfortunately, Hispanic students as a group lag far behind their peers on many academic indictors. For example, in 1998 thirty percent of all Latino 16-24 year olds were dropouts--1.5 million, more than double the dropout rate for Black (14 percent) and more than three times the rate for Whites (8 percent). Overall, Hispanic students consistently perform below the national average in the National Assessment of Educational Progress--NAEP. The latest NAEP results--2000 show that the percentage of 4th graders scoring above the proficient level nationwide was 16 percent for Hispanics and 40 percent for non-Hispanic whites in reading and 10 percent for Hispanics and 34 percent for whites in math. Disparities begin as early as kindergarten and remain through age 17. By age nine, Hispanic students lag behind their non-Hispanic peers in reading, mathematics and science proficiency. The increased funding included in this amendment will have a tremendous impact on addressing these serious gaps. I appreciate the efforts made by our chairman, Senator Harkin, on this bill overall. Due to his efforts and the efforts of his ranking member, Senator Specter, the bill includes significant increases for many education programs crucial to the Hispanic students and to all children. I want to thank both Senators for helping us to provide additional funds for these programs.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague and fellow chair of the Senate Hispanic-serving Institutions Coalition for her leadership on this important issue. As she knows, Hispanics, and particularly Hispanic youth, are the fastest growing group of Americans. Yet despite the fact that Hispanic Americans represent 13 percent of the population aged 18 to 24, they comprise only 5.5 percent of the students enrolled in four-year institutions of higher education. Moreover the number of Hispanics who never complete high schools stands at an alarming 30 percent. As a nation we simply cannot afford to have such a large and growing segment of our population go unprepared to face the economic challenges of the next century. Key to greater Hispanic American enrollment in both higher and secondary education are Hispanic-serving institutions. Despite the fact that they represent only three percent of all colleges and universities nationwide, HSIs educate over 600,000, or 42 percent, of the Hispanics enrolled in postsecondary education today. However, many HSIs remain critically underfunded and lack the resources and infrastructure necessary to meet the growing demands of the communities they serve.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators Jeffords, Leahy, and Murray entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses an inequity that was created during the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, that unfairly penalized certain States that had done the right thing and had expanded Medicaid coverage to children prior to the enactment of the bill. While the Congress recognized this fact for some States and ``grandfathered'' in their expansions so those States could use the new CHIP funding for the children of their respective states, the legislation failed to do so for others, including New Mexico. This had the effect of penalizing a certain group of states for having done the right thing. As a result, the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2001'' addresses this inequity by allowing four States, including New Mexico, Vermont, Washington, and Rhode Island, to be allowed to also utilize their CHIP allotments for coverage of children covered by Medicaid above their 1996 levels, putting them on a more level field with all other States in the country. Mr. President, as you know, in 1997 Congress and President Clinton agreed to establish the State Children's Health Insurance Program, CHIP, and provide $48 billion over 10 years as an incentive to States to provide health care coverage to uninsured, low-income children up 200 percent of poverty or beyond. During the negotiations of the Balanced Budget Act, BBA, of 1997, Congress and the Administration properly recognized that certain states were already undertaking Medicaid or separate state-run expansions of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty or above and that they would be allowed to use the new CHIP funding for those purposes. The final bill specifically allowed the States of Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania to convert their separate state-run programs into CHIP expansions and States that had expanded coverage to children through Medicaid after March 31, 1997, were also allowed to use CHIP funding for their expansions. Unfortunately, New Mexico and other States that had enacted similar expansions prior to March 1997 were denied the use of CHIP funding for their expansions. This created an inequity among the states where some were allowed to have their prior programs ``grandfathered'' into CHIP and others were denied. Again, our bill addresses this inequity. New Mexico has a strong record of attempting to expand coverage to children through the Medicaid program. In 1995, prior to the enactment of CHIP, New Mexico expanded coverage to for all children through age 18 through the Medicaid program up to 185 percent of poverty. After CHIP was passed, New Mexico further expanded its coverage up to 235 percent of poverty, above the level of the vast majority of states across the country. Due to the inequity caused by CHIP, New Mexico has been allocated $182 million from CHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2000, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $5 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend only 3 percent of its Federal CHIP allocations. New Mexico is unable to spend its funding because it had enacted its expansion of coverage to children up to 185 percent of poverty prior to the enactment of CHIP and our State was not ``grandfathered'' into CHIP as other comparable States were. The consequences for the children of New Mexico are enormous. According to the Census Bureau, New Mexico has an estimated 129,000 uninsured children. In other words, almost 22 percent of all the children in New Mexico are uninsured, despite the fact the State has expanded coverage up to 235 percent of poverty. This is the fourth highest rate of uninsured children in the country. This is a result of the fact that an estimated 103,000 of the 129,000 uninsured children in New Mexico are below 200 percent of poverty. These children are, consequently, eligible for Medicaid but currently unenrolled. With the exception of those few children between 185 and 200 percent of poverty who are eligible for CHIP funding, all of the remaining uninsured children below 185 percent of poverty in New Mexico are denied CHIP funding despite their need. Exacerbating this inequity is the fact that many states are accessing their CHIP allotments to cover kids at poverty levels far below New Mexico's current or past eligibility levels. The children in those states are certainly no more worthy of health insurance coverage than the children of New Mexico. As the most recent policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative States not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their States.'' Consequently, the bill I am introducing today corrects this inequity. The bill reflects a carefully-crated response to the unintended consequences of CHIP and brings much needed assistance to children currently uninsured in my State and other similarly situated States, including Washington, Vermont, and Rhode Island. Rather than simply changing the effective date included in the BBA that helped a smaller subset of States, this initiative includes strong maintenance of effort language as well as incentives for our State to conduct outreach and enrollment efforts and program simplification to find and enroll uninsured kids because we feel strongly that they receive the health coverage for which they are eligible. The bill does not take money from other States' CHIP allotments. It simply allows our States to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the Federal Government on our uninsured children, just as other States across the country are doing. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have a clarification for the Record. Amendment No. 2018 is an Inhofe amendment and not a Chafee amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate recess today from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, getting to a more efficient air- conditioning standard is an important part of a national energy strategy. This past summer, a nationwide heat wave in August led to brownouts and blackouts as our electricity system was stretched to its limits. While the new standard would take effect gradually over the long term, it would help reduce the peak demand for electricity on very hot days, and it would give consumers a break. I have been informed that thousands of public comments have been filed with the Department of Energy favorable to the 13 SEER standard, demonstrating broad public support for sticking with that standard. Previously, I indicated my belief that we should include a legislative provision mandating a 13 SEER standard in any energy legislation that we pass. It should be clear to all that this is a matter where there is broad public support for the better standard, and I believe the administration should try to be in line with that public sentiment. I hope the Department of Energy decides to go back to the earlier established standard, and they can certainly do that administratively without Congress having to act. But if DOE continues to push for watering down the standard, then I hope the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will exercise its watchdog role to ensure that good technical and economic analysis carries the day on this issue. I expect we will continue to see strong legislative support for this standard in the debate on energy legislation we have over the next weeks and months, and I hope that ultimately the EPA view of this matter will prevail. Exhibit 1 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, October 19, 2001. Ms. Brenda Edwards-Jones, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. Dear Ms. Edwards-Jones: On behalf of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, I am pleased to submit the attached comments to Docket No: EE-RM-98-440, the Department of Energy's Proposed Rule: Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards. DOE has proposed a change to its previously issued standard that decreases energy efficiency requirements for residential air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE proposes to withdraw its previously issued 13 SEER standard and replace it with a 12 SEER standard. These comments affirm EPA's support for DOE's original 13 SEER standard. EPA believes there is a strong rationale to support a 13 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard represents a 30% increase in the minimum efficiency requirements for central air conditioners and air source heat pumps. In contrast, a 12 SEER standard represents only a 20% increase. The Administration's National Energy Policy stresses the important role that energy efficiency plays in our energy future. A 13 SEER DOE standard will do more to stimulate energy savings that benefit the consumer. DOE has quantified these savings at approximately 4.2 quads of energy over the 2006-2030 period, equivalent to the annual energy use of 26 million households and resulting in net benefits to the consumer of approximately $1 billion by 2020. In comparison, DOE projects that only 3 quads of energy would be saved over that same period with a 12 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard will also do more to reduce fossil fuel consumption and more to limit emissions of air pollutants. For example, by avoiding the construction of 39 400 megawatt power plants, a 13 SEER standard will reduce nitrous oxides (NOX) emissions by up to 85 thousand metric tons versus up to 73 thousand metric tons that would be reduced with a 12 SEER standard. A 13 SEER standard will also result in cumulative greenhouse gas emission reductions of up to 33 million metric tons (Mt) of carbon. This is in contrast to a 12 SEER rule which will reduce up to 24 Mt of carbon equivalent by avoiding the construction of 27 400 megawatt power plants. At a time when many areas across the nation are struggling to improve their air quality, the additional emissions reductions achieved by a 13 SEER standard are especially important. Thank you for the opportunity to provide these written comments. Should you have any questions, please contact Dave Godwin in EPA's Office of Air and Radiation at 202-564-3517 or via e-mail at godwin.dave@epa.gov. Sincerely, Linda J. Fisher, Deputy Administrator. Comments of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on the Proposed Rule: Energy Conservation Programs for Consumer Products; Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standards, October 10, 2001 overview of epa comments The Environmental Protection Agency welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Department of Energy's Proposed Rule setting forth energy conservation standards for residential central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat pumps. EPA recognizes that the new proposed DOE rule represents a 20% increase in minimum efficiency standards for central air conditioning and heat pumps. However, we instead support the previous final rule of a 30% increase. EPA has issue with several of the arguments DOE used to justify the withdrawal of the previous final rule as outlined within the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 2001 and the Technical Support Document. In summary, EPA believes that the information in the Federal Register Notice of July 25, 2001 overstates the regulatory burden on manufacturers due to HCFC phase-out and concludes that the industry is under greater financial pressure from a 13 SEER standard than it is, understates the savings benefits of the 13 SEER standard, over and underestimates certain distributional inequalities, mischaracterizes the number of manufacturers that already produce at the 13 SEER level or could produce at the 13 SEER level through modest changes to the products, and thereby mischaracterizes the availability of 13 SEER product. [EPA believes there is a strong rationale to support a 13 SEER standard. EPA also believes that the more stringent standard will be more representative of the long term goals of the administration's energy policy and will do more to reduce both the number of new power plants that need to be constructed, as well as the emissions resulting from these plants.] EPA's more detailed comments are provided below. Another example would be: Move directly to producing R-407C and/or R-410A units that meet the new DOE efficiency regulations; Increase the production of these units to meet customer demand by 2006; Meanwhile, phase out all HCFC-22 units by 2006. Of course, some combination of these strategies is more likely to be taken and seems to offer the most opportunity for manufacturers to reduce regulatory burden. The TSD states ``To the extent that manufacturers can introduce new products utilizing the new refrigerant and meeting the new efficiency standard, the cumulative burden will be reduced.'' (TSD page 8-62). EPA believes that there is ample opportunity to meet both a 13 SEER efficiency standard and a ban on HCFC-22 in new equipment with limited regulatory burden. Underestimates of Savings in the Cost Benefit Analysis DOE's analysis of the benefits of the withdrawn 13 SEER rule are significantly underestimated. DOE's analysis is based on summer 1996 electricity prices, adjusted downward based on EIA projections of future annual electricity prices. Changes in the electricity market due to utility deregulation has resulted in increased electricity prices overall. DOE did not consider this trend in its analysis. According to Synapse Energy Economics' wholesale electricity price data, DOE analysis underestimates the cost of electricity for residential air conditioning by an average of approximately $0.02/kWh. In addition, the California Public Utilities Commission raised some residential rates by as much as 37%, affecting more than 10% of the U.S. electricity market and thereby, raising the national average electricity prices above DOE's projections. Adjusting DOE's analysis to include more recent electricity prices will definitely and drastically alter the results indicating that a DOE minimum standard of 13 SEER represents the better decision for the nation. Over and Under Estimates of Distributional Inequities EPA sees distributional inequalities that DOE has not adequately considered. One results from the fact that the residential price of electricity does not capture the complete cost for running systems that largely run at peak times. That is, except in select circumstances, residential customers purchase electricity based upon average rates, not ``time-of-use'' rates. The actual costs of electricity at peak times are dramatically more and therefore, higher peak rates drive up the average costs. Less efficient equipment operating at peak times drives up the cost of electricity for all customers, including those of low income, who are less likely to have central air conditioning. According to 1997 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) microdata (the same data set used by DOE in their analysis), of the total 101 million households represented, approximately 46% have central air conditioning, but among poor households, only 25% have central air conditioning; just half the rate of presence among non-poor households (See Exhibit 2). Also related to distributional equities and according to the RECS data, among households below the poverty level, about 60% rent their housing units. This is in contrast to 27% of above poverty level households that rent (See Exhibit 2). Therefore, low-income consumers, or those defined as ``poor'' in TSD Table 10.1, are not the ones to buy a central A/C or heat pump product, but they would be the one to pay the utility bill (or likely face increased rents if utilities were included in their rent) for the use of that product. Instituting a higher minimum efficiency standard will actually ensure that low-income consumers have lower utility bills, providing a benefit to this population. misinformation on product availability DOE justifies a lower SEER rule because the higher efficiency levels would put manufacturers out of business. However, according to the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute (ARI) database of model combinations, many manufacturers already produce models that meet the 13 SEER requirements. This technology has been available for many years to large and small manufacturers alike. Although confidential ARI shipment information may not reflect large sales of high efficiency equipment, the publicly accessible ARI database of models shows extensive product availability. Over 7,000 air source heat pump model combinations and over 14,000 central air conditioner model combinations currently meet or exceed the 13 SEER level as listed by ARI. The TSD (TSD page 8-2) describes a group of manufacturers that ``offer more substantial customer and dealer support and more advance products. To cover these higher operating expenses, this group attempts to ``sell-up'' to more efficient products or products with features that consumers and dealers value.'' With a higher standard, these manufacturers would not go out of business, but would rather continue to sell-up, to even higher efficiency levels or additional valued features. Furthermore, results and upcoming plans for utility programs around the country also document the availability of 13 SEER and above products, as well as the demand for such products. Austin Energy's Residential Efficiency Program 2000-2001 gave rebates to single family existing homes for installation of split systems and heat pumps with efficiencies of 12 SEER and above. Rebates were staged: $150 for 12.0-12.9 SEER; $250 for 13.0-13.9 SEER; $400 for 14.0-14.9 SEER; and $500 for 15.0 and above. In total, 4,000 rebates averaging $312 were given to consumers. These numbers illustrate that a significant portion of the rebates given were for 13 SEER and above units. In New Jersey, a 3-year rebate structure began in 2000 with a $370 rebate given for the installation of 13.0 SEER equipment and a $550 rebate given for 14.0 SEER equipment. A total of 14,000 rebates were given in the year 2000. As of August 2001, 8,000 rebates were given out with approximately 6,000 of these units at the 14.0 SEER level. Overall results in New Jersey show that 27% of the market (1998-2000) are 13 SEER or higher with 60% of those being at the 14 SEER or higher levels. The Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) instituted a program similar to the one in New Jersey offering rebates for installation of 13.0 and 14.0 SEER equipment. Results to date show that LIPA is on target to reach their goal of approximately 3,500 rebates for 13 SEER equipment. Approximately 80% of these rebates are for SEER 14 equipment. LIPA is expecting to ramp up to 5,000 rebates in 2002. Overall, 17% of LIPA's market in 2000 is at 13 SEER or higher, with the market share for existing homes even higher at 22%. Program plans for 2002 in Texas and California are geared toward equipment at 13 SEER and above. Reliant Energy in Southeast Texas is planning an incentive program to target 13 SEER and above matched systems. California's two large municipal utilities (Sacramento Municipal Utility District and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power) and four investor owned utilities (San Diego Gas and Electric, Southern California Gas, Southern California Edison, and Pacific Gas and Electric), serving over 30,000,000 consumers, are planning rebate programs to assure California residents receive energy efficient equipment, measures, and practices that provide maximum benefit for the cost. These programs all revolve around 13 SEER equipment or higher. Actual incentive amounts are not yet available.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am here to address another aspect of the energy issue that will come before us as comprehensive energy legislation, hopefully either this fall or early next year. It may seem to be an unusual item to address on Halloween as we are going into the colder months of the year, but it is one which I think deserves attention. There was a development 10 days ago that I think needs to be called to the attention of colleagues in the Senate. About 10 days ago, the Environmental Protection Agency transmitted formal comments to the Department of Energy--that is one agency of the Federal Government commenting to another Agency or Department of the Federal Government-- on the proposed standard for efficiency in central air conditioners. The Clinton administration had finalized a rule that mandated a 30- percent increase in efficiency for those central air conditioners. It was a so-called 13 SEER standard. SEER stands for seasonal energy efficiency rating. Shortly after the current administration took office, they proposed to back off this mandate and reduce it to only a 20-percent increase or a 12 SEER standard. The argument used by the new administration in rolling back the air-conditioning standard struck many of us in Congress as being based on outdated price data and a faulty analysis. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where the distinguished Presiding Officer and I both serve, had a hearing on this topic. We had expert testimony that demonstrated these analytical problems in the decisionmaking which the new administration had gone through. This EPA filing 10 days ago capsulized those concerns eloquently. In the Agency's own words, the new proposed standard--that is, the 12 SEER standard, the lesser standard this administration embraced-- ``overstates the regulatory burden,'' it ``understates the savings benefits of the 13 SEER standard, over and underestimates certain distributional inequalities,'' and ``mischaracterizes the number of manufacturers that already produce at the 13 SEER level or could produce at the 13 SEER level through modest changes to the product. . . .'' I will read one other quotation from the explanation of the EPA position. It says: EPA believes there is a strong rationale to support a 13 SEER standard. That is what the previous administration adopted. EPA also believes that the more stringent standard will be more representative of the long term goals of the administration's energy policy and will do more to reduce both the number of new power plants that need to be constructed, as well as the emissions resulting from these plants. . . . While these comments by the Environmental Protection Agency have received some attention, I believe they deserve broader attention by the public and certainly deserve to be recognized by people in the Senate. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the EPA letter to the Department of Energy and their explanation which they attached to that be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak in morning business for up to 5 minutes.

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