Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources has scheduled a hearing to receive testimony on proposed amendments to the Price-Anderson Act (Subtitle A of Title IV of S. 388; Subtitle A of Title I of S. 472; Title IX of S. 597) and nuclear energy production and efficiency incentives (Subtitle C of Title IV of S. 388; and Section 124 of S. 472). The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 26, at 9:30 a.m. in Room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. Those wishing to submit written statements on the legislation should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Sam Fowler at 202/224-7571. 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 the Committee has scheduled a hearing to consider the nominations of Vicky A. Bailey to be an Assistant Secretary of Energy (International Affairs and Domestic Policy), and Frances P. Mainella to be Director of the National Park Service. The hearing will take place in room 366, Dirksen Senate Office Building on Wednesday, June 27, immediately following the committee's 9:30 a.m. business meeting. Those wishing to submit written statements on the nominations should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler at 202/224-7571.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled for Tuesday, June 19, 15 9:30 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building will now start at 9 a.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 764, a bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose just and reasonable load-differentiated demand rates or cost-of-service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at wholesale in the western energy market, and for other purposes; and sections 508-510 (relating to wholesale electricity rates in the western energy market, natural gas rates in California, and the sale price of bundled natural gas transactions) of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001. For further information please contact Leon Lowery or Jonathan Black at 202/224-4103.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 21, at 9:30 a.m. in SD- 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to consider national energy policy with respect to fuel specifications and infrastructure constraints and their impacts on energy supply and price, (Part II). Those wishing to submit written statements should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Shirley Neff at 202/224-4103. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I'd like to thank my distinguished colleagues for their efforts. I also ask my Chair, Senator Kennedy, for his assistance during the conference to make any necessary amendments to the underlying bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, yesterday we passed amendment No. 505 by unanimous consent. The amendment relates to BIA schools. The legislation was considered by the Indian Affairs Committee and the amendment was cosponsored by the distinguished Chair and Ranking Member of that Committee. I would like to note for the record that the Navajo nation has some concerns regarding some of the provisions in that amendment. I understand that Senators Inouye and Campbell are working with my office and representatives of the Navajo nation to address those concerns. I'd like to ask Senator Inouye if my understanding is correct?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleague from Mississippi, Senator Cochran, for including my legislation reauthorizing the smaller learning communities program in his amendment related to national activities. I am also grateful to my colleagues for supporting this amendment. My legislation ensures that the currently authorized and funded smaller learning communities program, which I sponsored during the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, continues. This program provides funds to school districts to assist in the creation of smaller learning communities or ``schools within schools.'' This is an extremely important program that we know works to improve student achievement and make our schools safer. In the past 40 years, schools--especially high schools--have been getting bigger and bigger. In today's urban and suburban settings, high school enrollment of 2,000 and 3,000 are commonplace; in some places like New York City school enrollments near 5,000. Research demonstrates that students in schools of this size do not perform as well as students in smaller schools and large schools are less safe. Research also has shown that small schools and large schools broken down into smaller learning communities are superior to large schools on virtually every measure of educational success. Student achievement is higher in small school environments. Students in these schools tend to have higher grades, test scores, and honor roll membership, even when other variables such as teacher quality or community characteristics are considered. Furthermore, students from small school environments are more likely to finish high school. They also are more likely to be admitted to college, do well once they are there and complete their studies. These results are even more pronounced for minority and low- income students. Because teachers have fewer students in smaller schools they can know their students better, minority and low-income students are less likely to be overlooked. As a result, the creation of smaller learning communities can be an effective way to address the achievement gap between poor students and their more affluent peers. Smaller learning environments also address non-academic learning because they provide an environment where students can learn how to participate actively in their school community. Student attitudes are overwhelmingly more positive in small schools. Students are far more likely to be involved in extracurricular activities than students in large schools. In order to have a sufficient number of players on the team or members of the club, all students must participate in small schools. In contrast, in large schools many students do not have a chance to participate in these important school experiences unless they display some special talent. Research has demonstrated that participating in extracurricular activities contributes significantly to student learning and makes it less likely that the student will drop out of school or have poor attendance. Smaller learning communities also result in safer schools. Large school environments tend to promote feelings of isolation and alienation. In contrast, smaller learning communities promote a sense of belonging and community. Since there is an undisputed relationship between students' feelings of alienation and school violence, the creation of smaller learning communities is a very effective strategy for preventing the occurrence of acts of school violence that have become tragically commonplace in schools across the country in recent years. In smaller learning environments, problems in interpersonal relationships or other difficulties can be addressed before they lead to violence. Because teachers can get to know all students on a personal level, smaller learning communities go a long way towards ensuring that all students feel they belong and that they are safe. This makes the creation of smaller learning communities an important method of preventing school violence. Smaller learning communities also help to decrease teacher attrition and therefore improve the quality of instruction. Teachers working in smaller learning environments often feel that they have more opportunity to teach instead of dealing with paperwork and discipline problems that are more common in larger school environments. Under such circumstances, teacher morale is improved making good teachers less likely to ``burn out.'' I have been advocating for small schools and the creation of smaller learning communities for a number of years. The smaller learning community program was first authorized in 1994. The program was funded in FY 2000. Last year, a total of 354 schools serving over 400,000 high school students in 39 States were awarded grants to plan, develop and implement strategies that would personalize the learning environment for students. The legislation allows for local decisionmaking with respect to how to build smaller learning communities. Some of the most common strategies include: (1) creating career academies that offer students academic programs organized around a broad career theme, often building on team teaching methods; (2) implementing mentoring systems in which teachers, counselors, and other school staff advise students on a personal level; and (3) creating schools within schools so that smaller groups of students take all or most of their classes together--often from the same team of teachers and/or administrators and often operating in distinct areas of the school facility. All of these strategies are designed to create a more individualized learning environment. In my home State of New Mexico, the Albuquerque School District received a substantial grant under this program last year, which will allow them to create smaller learning communities in six of their high schools and hopefully with additional funding through this program they will be able to do so in all of the city's high schools. I was able to visit one of these schools recently and see the good work being done with some of the funding from this program. I visited Cibola High School, where they have created a school-within-a-school for ninth graders with their small schools grant. Taking into account evidence of a high drop out rate at ninth grade, the faculty at Cibola decided to move all of the ninth graders into one corridor and divide them into five teams. Each team of teachers meets together two to three times a week to discuss instructional strategies and any concerns about students on their team. The grant allowed them to hire four more teachers reducing pupil/teacher ratios. They also created two lunch periods within the school so that the ninth graders have their own lunch. Preliminary data indicates that the work at Cibola has been quite successful. The drop out rate declined from 9 percent to a little over 1 percent. Eighty-six percent of the ninth graders earned all of their credits last year and moved on to the tenth grade. Students, teachers and parents continually comment on how the new arrangements has helped students to be successful. The schools reports that students feel safer and less worried about the transition to high school. Teachers comment that they enjoy teaching more since there are fewer discipline problems and they have more opportunity to work with students one-to-one. I have a letter from Linda Sink, the principal at Cibola High School, summarizing the success at the school. I also note that teachers and administrators in schools in Las Lunas, NM were also delighted to receive a smaller learning communities grant last year. They are confident that the career academy, which will open in August 2001, funded through this grant will do much to improve the educational experience of their students. This academy will offer core academic content within the context of career programs in pre- engineering, electronics, culinary arts, criminal justice, education and health services. No doubt small schools in themselves are insufficient to address all of the problems that are facing our nation's educational system. But the strategy of reorganizing our large schools into smaller learning communities is a proven method of reform which attacks many if not most of the challenges facing schools today. Throughout the history of education parents of means have sent their children to small schools because they have known that in smaller schools their children will have the opportunity to connect with adults who care about them and can give consideration to their learning needs. With your support, small schools can continue to be created in order to provide children with learning environments that help all children succeed. amendment no. 386

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that the hearing previously scheduled for Thursday, June 14, at 9:30 a.m., in SD-106, has been postponed. The purpose of the hearing was to receive testimony on potential problems in the gasoline markets this summer. The hearing has not been rescheduled at this time. For further information, please call Shirley Neff at 202/224-4103.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bridges to Cuban People Act of 2001. As many of my colleagues know, I have been vocal in my support of legislation that removes sanctions against the Cuban people. I have supported such legislation for several reasons. First, sanctions ultimately hurt the very people we proclaim we are trying to help. It is obvious by now that barriers that either hinder or prohibit the flow of food and medicine to Cuba do not impact the Castro regime, but rather harms innocent men, women, and children. Second, sanctions are counterproductive to our goal of bringing about change in Cuba. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that our continued efforts to isolate Cuba has brought about any transformation in the way the Castro regime sees or reacts to the world. Finally, sanctions prevent U.S. firms from exporting to Cuba, allow their counterparts in other countries to make sales our firms cannot, and thus harm the U.S. economic interest. I am convinced engagement on all fronts--social, economic, and political--will make a substantial difference in Cuba, and it is way past time that we begin that process. The bill today represents another dramatic step forward in our policy in this regard. After considerable debate over the years, we are now seeing consensus emerge among my colleagues on this issue, as indicated by the bi-partisan support for this bill. The components of this legislation--the unrestricted sales of food, farm equipment, agricultural commodities and medicine, the removal of restrictions on travel, the authorization of scholarships for Cuban students to study in the United States, among others--are in fact the humanitarian, responsible, and appropriate way to approach Cuba at this time. Let me emphasize today, as I have in the past, that the elimination of sanctions on Cuba and the creation of new opportunities for the Cuban people does not imply that I, or the Senate as a whole, agree with the policies and politics of the Castro regime. Quite the contrary. I believe the Castro regime to be distinctly out of touch with current trends in the international system and their own people. I personally deplore the Castro regime's oppressive tactics. The lack of freedom and opportunity in that country stands in direct contrast to most of the countries in the Western Hemisphere and throughout the world. Cuba now stands alone in its inability to allow the growth of democracy, to establish the protection of individual rights, and create a semblance of economic security. It is a political system that should be condemned at every opportunity. But as a practical matter this legislation suggests that we cannot effectively punish authoritarian regimes through their own people. Cuba is ripe for change, and the best way to achieve positive change is to allow Americans to communicate and associate with the Cuban people on an intensive and ongoing basis, to re-establish cultural activities, and to rebuild economic relations. To allow the Cuban system to remain closed does little to assert United States influence over policy in that country and it does absolutely nothing in terms of creating the foundation for much-needed political economic transformation. The spread of democracy comes from interaction, not isolation. So, I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, McCain, Corzine, and Lincoln. This legislation is entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001.'' The purpose of the legislation is to significantly reduce the number of uninsured children and pregnant women by improving outreach to and enrollment of children and by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP. An estimated 11 million children under age 19 were without health insurance in 1999, including 129,000 in New Mexico, representing 15 percent of all children in the United States and 22 percent of children in New Mexico. Unfortunately, due to variety of factors, including the lack of knowledge by families about CHIP and bureaucratic barriers to coverage such as lengthy and complex applications, an estimated 6.7 million of our Nation's uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or CHIP. In addition, an estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.'' It is a travesty that our Nation ranks 25th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, which is the worst among developed nations. Our legislation would address the problems related to these issues. Giving children a healthy start: The legislation provides States with an enhanced Medicaid matching rate to ensure that children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP leave the hospital insured and remain so through the first year of life. The legislation provides States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birthweight babies. Helping children stay healthy: The legislation provides States with an enhanced Medicaid matching rate to reduce the barriers to care for children to keep them healthy throughout their childhood. And, the legislation provides States with the option to increase CHIP eligibility from 200 percent of federal poverty level to 250 percent and to extend coverage to children through age 20. As an example of an imposed barrier to health coverage, as of March of this year, eight States continued to impose an asset test on children and their families prior to receiving Medicaid coverage. This results in a rather burdensome and complicated application in each of these States. For example, in Colorado, the Denver Department of Human Services received 15,330 application for Medicaid and 3,700 were denied for having an asset, such as a car, in 1999. As the Denver Post pointed out, ``Acquire an asset more than $1,500, such as a car, and you've traded in health insurance for your children.'' In addition to creating a high percentage of denials, the imposition of an assets test significantly complicates the Medicaid or CHIP enrollment applications. For example, some States require reporting on everything from whether anyone in the household has any resource such as a checking account, life insurance, burial insurance, a saving account, or any personal items above a certain amount to documenting things such as work income, alimony, child support, interest from savings, CD's, etc. over a period of time, including several months in the past. This can be a nightmare for some families. In Colorado, of the families that do attempt to fill out the Medicaid or CHIP application, it is estimated that 37 percent of all families are denied coverage because the application is incomplete. In Texas, Medicaid applicants can face a 17-page application, up to 14 forms and up to 20 verifications of those forms. As a story in last Friday's Washington Post entitled ``Health Coverage for Kids Low-Cost but Little Used,'' it was noted that about 100 students from Yale Medical School, likely some of our Nation's best and brightest, filled out applications forms as part of their training to enroll families and that not one was able to complete the form adequately. If Yale Medical School students cannot fill out the forms properly, is it any wonder that families across the country are having a difficult time with the bureaucratic paperwork? Fortunately, New Mexico eliminated its assets test a few years ago in an effort to simplify its Medicaid application and make it easier for families to apply. According to a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, States that have eliminated the asset test from Medicaid have been able to streamline the eligibility determination process, adopt automated eligibility determination systems, improve the productivity of eligibility workers, establish Medicaid's identity as a health insurance program distinct from welfare, make the enrollment process for families friendlier and more accessible, and achieve Medicaid administrative cost savings. In addition, the State of Texas has enacted legislation in recent days that seeks to simplify its enrollment process. And yet, there are also reports from other States such as Kentucky and Idaho that are moving to impose additional bureaucratic barriers to coverage. As the Denver Rocky Mountain News writes, ``The logic of erecting such paperwork obstacles escapes us. Government doesn't have to offer insurance to the children of the working poor, but having made the decision to do so, it's hardly fair then to smother the program beneath layers of red tape.'' There are also problems related to the poor coordination between government agencies that are supposed to serve low-income families. My good friend, Senator Lugar, recognized this very point and successfully passed language in the ``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000'' to improve the coordination between the school lunch program and both Medicaid and CHIP. His language makes it easier to disclose information from the school lunch program application to Medicaid and CHIP agencies. Since children that qualify for the school lunch program are almost certainly eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP, this simple but important language is already having an important impact on the enrollment of children into Medicaid or CHIP. According to a report by Covering Kids, the Albuquerque Public Schools have successfully worked to improve coordination between Medicaid and the school lunch program. As the report reads, ``The team's record of success shows that a well-designed process and dedicated staff can make [Medicaid enrollment] work. In August and September of 2000, Albuquerque Public Schools determined 386 children to be presumptively eligible for health coverage. Of these, 371 were enrolled and only 15 were denied. That's a 96 percent acceptance rate. And the numbers are growing.'' This coordination between Medicaid and the school lunch program is being replicated across the country as a result of Senator Lugar's language. However, we still have a number of problems with regard to coordination between Medicaid and CHIP across the states that this bill seeks to address. Why is this important? Why should we make additional efforts to reduce the number of uninsured children? According to the American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine, uninsured children, compared to the insured, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. This is equally true of expanded coverage to children and pregnant women in government health programs. In fact, one study has ``estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent.'' This expansion of coverage for children occurred, I would add, during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action. We, as a Nation, should be doing much better by our children. It should be unacceptable to all of us that the United States ranks 25th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world. Therefore, in addition to seeking to improve health insurance coverage among children, the bill builds off legislation sponsored in the last Congress by Senator Lincoln entitled the ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act'' and makes an important change to CHIP to allow pregnant women to be covered. Thus, the first two words of our bill, ``Start Healthy.'' Throughout our Nation's history, there has been long-standing Federal policy linking programs for pregnant women and infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal Child Health Block Grant. CHIP, unfortunately, failed to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that children eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, miss those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed. They are also more likely not to have had prenatal care. By expanding coverage to pregnant women in the Children's Health Insurance Program, this legislation recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine notes, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.'' Unfortunately, according to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care last year. The result is often quite costly, both in terms of the health of the mother and child but also in terms of long-term expenses since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems. In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' As a result, in addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage of pregnant women and prenatal care can be cost effective. The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act also eliminates the unintended Federal incentives through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cut off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Should the government tell women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager? I certainly think not, and certainly it is unlikely there is a single Senator that would think it wise to send such a message. This legislation corrects this unfortunate and unintentional policy by allowing pregnant women to be covered through CHIP regardless of age. And finally, this legislation imposes no Federal mandates on States to achieve these goals. Rather, through financial incentives, States that adopt ``best practices'' and less cumbersome enrollment processes for children would be rewarded. The budget resolution contains $28 billion over 10 years to reduce the number of uninsured in this country. Although the Congress passed CHIP in 1997, 11 million children remain uninsured. It is time we finish the job of ensuring that we, as the President says, ``leave no child behind.'' This bipartisan legislation has already received the endorsement of the following organizations: the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Catholic Health Association, Premier, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, and the United Cerebral Palsy Associations. I urge its passage as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Bridges to Cuban People Act of 2001. As many of my colleagues know, I have been vocal in my support of legislation that removes sanctions against the Cuban people. I have supported such legislation for several reasons. First, sanctions ultimately hurt the very people we proclaim we are trying to help. It is obvious by now that barriers that either hinder or prohibit the flow of food and medicine to Cuba do not impact the Castro regime, but rather harms innocent men, women, and children. Second, sanctions are counterproductive to our goal of bringing about change in Cuba. There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that our continued efforts to isolate Cuba has brought about any transformation in the way the Castro regime sees or reacts to the world. Finally, sanctions prevent U.S. firms from exporting to Cuba, allow their counterparts in other countries to make sales our firms cannot, and thus harm the U.S. economic interest. I am convinced engagement on all fronts--social, economic, and political--will make a substantial difference in Cuba, and it is way past time that we begin that process. The bill today represents another dramatic step forward in our policy in this regard. After considerable debate over the years, we are now seeing consensus emerge among my colleagues on this issue, as indicated by the bi-partisan support for this bill. The components of this legislation--the unrestricted sales of food, farm equipment, agricultural commodities and medicine, the removal of restrictions on travel, the authorization of scholarships for Cuban students to study in the United States, among others--are in fact the humanitarian, responsible, and appropriate way to approach Cuba at this time. Let me emphasize today, as I have in the past, that the elimination of sanctions on Cuba and the creation of new opportunities for the Cuban people does not imply that I, or the Senate as a whole, agree with the policies and politics of the Castro regime. Quite the contrary. I believe the Castro regime to be distinctly out of touch with current trends in the international system and their own people. I personally deplore the Castro regime's oppressive tactics. The lack of freedom and opportunity in that country stands in direct contrast to most of the countries in the Western Hemisphere and throughout the world. Cuba now stands alone in its inability to allow the growth of democracy, to establish the protection of individual rights, and create a semblance of economic security. It is a political system that should be condemned at every opportunity. But as a practical matter this legislation suggests that we cannot effectively punish authoritarian regimes through their own people. Cuba is ripe for change, and the best way to achieve positive change is to allow Americans to communicate and associate with the Cuban people on an intensive and ongoing basis, to re-establish cultural activities, and to rebuild economic relations. To allow the Cuban system to remain closed does little to assert United States influence over policy in that country and it does absolutely nothing in terms of creating the foundation for much-needed political economic transformation. The spread of democracy comes from interaction, not isolation. So, I strongly support this bill, and I urge my colleagues to do so as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, McCain, Corzine, and Lincoln. This legislation is entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2001.'' The purpose of the legislation is to significantly reduce the number of uninsured children and pregnant women by improving outreach to and enrollment of children and by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP. An estimated 11 million children under age 19 were without health insurance in 1999, including 129,000 in New Mexico, representing 15 percent of all children in the United States and 22 percent of children in New Mexico. Unfortunately, due to variety of factors, including the lack of knowledge by families about CHIP and bureaucratic barriers to coverage such as lengthy and complex applications, an estimated 6.7 million of our Nation's uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or CHIP. In addition, an estimated 4.3 million, or 32 percent, of mothers below 200 percent of poverty are uninsured. According to the March of Dimes, ``Over 95 percent of all uninsured pregnant women could be covered through a combination of aggressive Medicaid outreach, maximizing coverage for young women through [CHIP], and expanding CHIP to cover income-eligible pregnant women regardless of age.'' It is a travesty that our Nation ranks 25th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world, which is the worst among developed nations. Our legislation would address the problems related to these issues. Giving children a healthy start: The legislation provides States with an enhanced Medicaid matching rate to ensure that children eligible for Medicaid or CHIP leave the hospital insured and remain so through the first year of life. The legislation provides States with the option to further extend coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and CHIP to reduce infant and maternal mortality and low birthweight babies. Helping children stay healthy: The legislation provides States with an enhanced Medicaid matching rate to reduce the barriers to care for children to keep them healthy throughout their childhood. And, the legislation provides States with the option to increase CHIP eligibility from 200 percent of federal poverty level to 250 percent and to extend coverage to children through age 20. As an example of an imposed barrier to health coverage, as of March of this year, eight States continued to impose an asset test on children and their families prior to receiving Medicaid coverage. This results in a rather burdensome and complicated application in each of these States. For example, in Colorado, the Denver Department of Human Services received 15,330 application for Medicaid and 3,700 were denied for having an asset, such as a car, in 1999. As the Denver Post pointed out, ``Acquire an asset more than $1,500, such as a car, and you've traded in health insurance for your children.'' In addition to creating a high percentage of denials, the imposition of an assets test significantly complicates the Medicaid or CHIP enrollment applications. For example, some States require reporting on everything from whether anyone in the household has any resource such as a checking account, life insurance, burial insurance, a saving account, or any personal items above a certain amount to documenting things such as work income, alimony, child support, interest from savings, CD's, etc. over a period of time, including several months in the past. This can be a nightmare for some families. In Colorado, of the families that do attempt to fill out the Medicaid or CHIP application, it is estimated that 37 percent of all families are denied coverage because the application is incomplete. In Texas, Medicaid applicants can face a 17-page application, up to 14 forms and up to 20 verifications of those forms. As a story in last Friday's Washington Post entitled ``Health Coverage for Kids Low-Cost but Little Used,'' it was noted that about 100 students from Yale Medical School, likely some of our Nation's best and brightest, filled out applications forms as part of their training to enroll families and that not one was able to complete the form adequately. If Yale Medical School students cannot fill out the forms properly, is it any wonder that families across the country are having a difficult time with the bureaucratic paperwork? Fortunately, New Mexico eliminated its assets test a few years ago in an effort to simplify its Medicaid application and make it easier for families to apply. According to a recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation, States that have eliminated the asset test from Medicaid have been able to streamline the eligibility determination process, adopt automated eligibility determination systems, improve the productivity of eligibility workers, establish Medicaid's identity as a health insurance program distinct from welfare, make the enrollment process for families friendlier and more accessible, and achieve Medicaid administrative cost savings. In addition, the State of Texas has enacted legislation in recent days that seeks to simplify its enrollment process. And yet, there are also reports from other States such as Kentucky and Idaho that are moving to impose additional bureaucratic barriers to coverage. As the Denver Rocky Mountain News writes, ``The logic of erecting such paperwork obstacles escapes us. Government doesn't have to offer insurance to the children of the working poor, but having made the decision to do so, it's hardly fair then to smother the program beneath layers of red tape.'' There are also problems related to the poor coordination between government agencies that are supposed to serve low-income families. My good friend, Senator Lugar, recognized this very point and successfully passed language in the ``Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000'' to improve the coordination between the school lunch program and both Medicaid and CHIP. His language makes it easier to disclose information from the school lunch program application to Medicaid and CHIP agencies. Since children that qualify for the school lunch program are almost certainly eligible for either Medicaid or CHIP, this simple but important language is already having an important impact on the enrollment of children into Medicaid or CHIP. According to a report by Covering Kids, the Albuquerque Public Schools have successfully worked to improve coordination between Medicaid and the school lunch program. As the report reads, ``The team's record of success shows that a well-designed process and dedicated staff can make [Medicaid enrollment] work. In August and September of 2000, Albuquerque Public Schools determined 386 children to be presumptively eligible for health coverage. Of these, 371 were enrolled and only 15 were denied. That's a 96 percent acceptance rate. And the numbers are growing.'' This coordination between Medicaid and the school lunch program is being replicated across the country as a result of Senator Lugar's language. However, we still have a number of problems with regard to coordination between Medicaid and CHIP across the states that this bill seeks to address. Why is this important? Why should we make additional efforts to reduce the number of uninsured children? According to the American College of Physicians--American Society of Internal Medicine, uninsured children, compared to the insured, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. This is equally true of expanded coverage to children and pregnant women in government health programs. In fact, one study has ``estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent.'' This expansion of coverage for children occurred, I would add, during the Reagan and Bush Administrations, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action. We, as a Nation, should be doing much better by our children. It should be unacceptable to all of us that the United States ranks 25th in infant mortality and 21st in maternal mortality in the world. Therefore, in addition to seeking to improve health insurance coverage among children, the bill builds off legislation sponsored in the last Congress by Senator Lincoln entitled the ``Improved Maternal and Children's Health Coverage Act'' and makes an important change to CHIP to allow pregnant women to be covered. Thus, the first two words of our bill, ``Start Healthy.'' Throughout our Nation's history, there has been long-standing Federal policy linking programs for pregnant women and infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal Child Health Block Grant. CHIP, unfortunately, failed to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that children eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, miss those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed. They are also more likely not to have had prenatal care. By expanding coverage to pregnant women in the Children's Health Insurance Program, this legislation recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine notes, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.'' Unfortunately, according to a recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care last year. The result is often quite costly, both in terms of the health of the mother and child but also in terms of long-term expenses since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems. In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' As a result, in addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage of pregnant women and prenatal care can be cost effective. The Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act also eliminates the unintended Federal incentives through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cut off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Should the government tell women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager? I certainly think not, and certainly it is unlikely there is a single Senator that would think it wise to send such a message. This legislation corrects this unfortunate and unintentional policy by allowing pregnant women to be covered through CHIP regardless of age. And finally, this legislation imposes no Federal mandates on States to achieve these goals. Rather, through financial incentives, States that adopt ``best practices'' and less cumbersome enrollment processes for children would be rewarded. The budget resolution contains $28 billion over 10 years to reduce the number of uninsured in this country. Although the Congress passed CHIP in 1997, 11 million children remain uninsured. It is time we finish the job of ensuring that we, as the President says, ``leave no child behind.'' This bipartisan legislation has already received the endorsement of the following organizations: the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Catholic Health Association, Premier, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, and the United Cerebral Palsy Associations. I urge its passage as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a fact sheet be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, June 20, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to consider the nominations of: Patricia Lynn Scarlett to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Policy, Management and Budget); William Gerry Myers III to be the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior; and Bennett William Raley to be an Assistant Secretary of the Interior (for Water and Science). Those wishing to submit written statements on a nomination should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at (202) 224- 4103.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, June 19, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 764, a bill to direct the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to impose just and reasonable load-differentiated demand rates or cost-of-service based rates on sales by public utilities of electric energy at wholesale in the western energy market, and for other purposes; and sections 508- 510, relating to wholesale electricity rates in the western energy market, natural gas rates in California, and the sale price of bundled natural gas transactions, of S. 597, the Comprehensive and Balanced Energy Policy Act of 2001. Those wishing to submit written statements on these bills should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Leon Lowery at (202) 224- 4103. committee on energy and natural resources

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I take a moment on the Senate floor to state my sadness--and I am sure the sadness of many Senators--on the death of James Boatwright. For all the years I have served in the Senate, James has worked in the Senate restaurant. He has been a friend of mine and to many of us. He has kept us informed and entertained with his stories about his golf game, his insights about life, and sports in general. He was a very real and valuable part of the Senate and he will be missed by all of us who knew him.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for just a few minutes about my safe schools amendment to S. 1, the Better Education for Students and Teachers Act of 2001. My amendment, the Safe School Security Act of 2001, addresses an element that has not been given enough attention in the debate over ESEA, school security. In recent years, we have witnessed too many tragic shootings that have resulted in the deaths of students and teachers. While these school shootings are shocking and disturbing, and have received much attention, it is the everyday school violence and crime that plagues most students and teachers and interferes with their ability to learn and teach. Today I offer an amendment that is designed to assist schools in reducing school violence and campus crimes. This legislation would establish the School Security Technology and Resource Center, SSTAR, in New Mexico to work in partnership with the Rural Law Enforcement Center in Arkansas and the National law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center in South Carolina. In the 106th Congress, I introduced similar legislation to establish the School Security Technology and Resource Center, SSTAR, at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. While the bill was accepted by the Senate, and became part of the Juvenile Crime Bill in May 1999, the conference committee failed to produce a conference report and the bill never came before the full Congress for a vote. Nonetheless, over the past 3 years, SSTAR has pursued its mission and has provided assistance to hundreds of schools across the country. In 1999, Sandia worked with the National Institute of Justice to publish what became the most widely requested document from NIJ last year: The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools. Last year, SSTAR put on a National School Safety Conference in Dallas, TX, for hundreds of school administrators and safety personnel from across the country. In the last 2 years, with limited resources, SSTAR provided tailored school security assessments for schools in Texas, Massachusetts, and the Navajo Nation. The Texas project came about when SSTAR was contacted by the administration at Permian High School in Odessa, TX. Although Permian had not experienced any major acts of violence, the Columbine shootings made the administrators rethink the risks facing their large population of 2,200 students. Like most schools, Permian was also interested in reducing the everyday problems such as fights, theft, vandalism, graffiti and intruders on campus. In the end, the security upgrades and policy changes were well received by the school administration, parents and students. The idea for SSTAR started in 1997 with a local initiative in New Mexico involving Sandia National Laboratories and a local high school that was experiencing a high number of student car break-ins, vandalism and theft of school property. Sandia Labs partnered with the community and local businesses to implement a wide variety of security upgrades at Belen High School, just south of Albuquerque. In the year after they implemented the Sandia-designed plan, Belen experienced a 75 percent reduction in school violence, a 30 percent reduction in truancy, an 80 percent reduction in theft from vehicles, and a 75 percent reduction in vandalism. Interestingly, the drop in automobile break-ins seemed to reduce the level of conflict among students and provided many students with ease of mind. The drop in truancy, vandalism and violent crime convinced me that this was a program that should be available to all schools. Because of Sandia's expertise in evaluating and designing security for our Nation's nuclear sites, Sandia is well suited to evaluate the security of our Nation's schools and advise school administrators on how to create safer learning facilities. This transfer of experience to a school setting has proved beneficial in many pilot projects around the country. SSTAR, when fully operational, intends to offer workshops to train school personnel in school security, provide security assessments for public schools, and test existing security technologies so schools do not spend precious resources on equipment that doesn't work or doesn't suit their needs. The amendment I am introducing today also establishes a $10 million grant program under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program to assist schools in implementing security strategies. These grants will enable school to purchase high tech security equipment or implement low tech security upgrades. While our children's safety is of paramount concern, we should also aim to protect the significant investment by America's taxpayers in expensive computer equipment and other high-tech teaching tools prevalent in many schools today. If students do not feel safe in their own schools, they cannot focus and perform to the best of their ability. If teachers do not feel safe in their classrooms, they cannot fully concentrate on teaching. I believe we have a responsibility to do what is in our power to make our children and teachers safe at school so they can focus on learning and educating. While we have invested in our national laboratories so they can protect our nuclear arsenal, and we have invested in our Federal buildings to protect our Federal employees and the general public, we have failed to adequately invest in our Nation's schools so they can protect our Nation's most valuable assets--our youth. SSTAR can fulfill this responsibility if given the proper resources. Therefore, I urge my Senate colleagues to support this legislation. I thank Senator Hutchinson of Arkansas for partnering with me on this bill two years ago and for sticking by this worthwhile legislation. I also want to thank Senators Hollings and Corzine for their willingness to cosponsor this bill. The services provided by SSTAR and the Rural law Enforcement Center have benefitted many students, teachers, parents and law enforcement and I believe these services should now be shared with the entire country. amendment no. 519

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes 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 would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, June 14, 2001, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on potential problems in the gasoline markets this summer. Those wishing to submit written statements should address them to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150. For further information, please contact Shirley Neff at (202) 224- 4103.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, to introduce a bill that would award the Korean Defense Service Medal to all members of the Armed Forces who participated in operations in Korea after the end of the Korean War. Fifty years ago, American men and women were fighting a very tough war in Korea. We commemorate their heroism in many ways half a century later, and pause at the beautiful memorial to those who served in that conflict located here in Washington. That war and those heroes, however, are only the first part of the story. The rest of the story is about the more than 40,000 members of the United States armed forces who have served in Korea since the signing of the cease-fire agreement in July 1953. Technically speaking, North and South Korea remain at war to this day, and during the intervening cease fire, the uncertain ``peace'' has been challenged many many times. According to statistics I have read, the North Koreans have breached the cease-fire agreement more than 40,000 times since 1954 using virtually every method of limited attacks you could think of. Some 1,239 U.S. service personnel have been killed in Korea during the past 47 years; 87 have been captured, held prisoner, and in many cases, tortured. During the past five decades, our service men and women in Korea have performed their duties in a virtual tinderbox waiting for a match. There is no question about the danger of their assignment. Some 70 percent of North Korea's active military force, including about 700,000 troops, more than 8,000 artillery systems, and 2000 tanks are within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone, DMZ. Military experts estimate that a massive North Korean attack could overrun South Korea's capital at Seoul in a matter of hours or days. A potential frontal assault by North Korean troops would have the backing of more than 500 short range ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction in addition to conventional warheads. It is amazing to me to have discovered that despite all of these facts, the Department of Defense has not awarded service awards to those who served in Korea during the Cold War. It should be noted that there have been more casualties in Korea since 1954 that in Sinai, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Kuwait, and yet service awards have been presented to participants in each of those operations, but not to those who have served in Korea. General Thomas Schwartz, current Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces Korea has recognized this injustice and supports the award I am proposing today. Representative Elton Gallegly from California introduced this bill in the House recently, and I am honored to do so here in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join with me to attain swift passage of this measure which is a long overdue expression of recognition and gratitude to the thousands of American men and women in uniform who have put their lives literally on the front line for peace and freedom.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my esteemed colleague, Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, to introduce a bill that would award the Korean Defense Service Medal to all members of the Armed Forces who participated in operations in Korea after the end of the Korean War. Fifty years ago, American men and women were fighting a very tough war in Korea. We commemorate their heroism in many ways half a century later, and pause at the beautiful memorial to those who served in that conflict located here in Washington. That war and those heroes, however, are only the first part of the story. The rest of the story is about the more than 40,000 members of the United States armed forces who have served in Korea since the signing of the cease-fire agreement in July 1953. Technically speaking, North and South Korea remain at war to this day, and during the intervening cease fire, the uncertain ``peace'' has been challenged many many times. According to statistics I have read, the North Koreans have breached the cease-fire agreement more than 40,000 times since 1954 using virtually every method of limited attacks you could think of. Some 1,239 U.S. service personnel have been killed in Korea during the past 47 years; 87 have been captured, held prisoner, and in many cases, tortured. During the past five decades, our service men and women in Korea have performed their duties in a virtual tinderbox waiting for a match. There is no question about the danger of their assignment. Some 70 percent of North Korea's active military force, including about 700,000 troops, more than 8,000 artillery systems, and 2000 tanks are within 90 miles of the Demilitarized Zone, DMZ. Military experts estimate that a massive North Korean attack could overrun South Korea's capital at Seoul in a matter of hours or days. A potential frontal assault by North Korean troops would have the backing of more than 500 short range ballistic missiles capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction in addition to conventional warheads. It is amazing to me to have discovered that despite all of these facts, the Department of Defense has not awarded service awards to those who served in Korea during the Cold War. It should be noted that there have been more casualties in Korea since 1954 that in Sinai, Grenada, Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Kuwait, and yet service awards have been presented to participants in each of those operations, but not to those who have served in Korea. General Thomas Schwartz, current Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Forces Korea has recognized this injustice and supports the award I am proposing today. Representative Elton Gallegly from California introduced this bill in the House recently, and I am honored to do so here in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to join with me to attain swift passage of this measure which is a long overdue expression of recognition and gratitude to the thousands of American men and women in uniform who have put their lives literally on the front line for peace and freedom.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, those who voted for the last amendment which I offered on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Domenici, voted to allow States to continue to make the decision as to how they administer their education programs and their education funds. In my view, that is the appropriate position for us to take in the Senate. The amendment the Senator from Ohio is now offering would, in fact, give the Governors a veto over any State plan, regardless of whether that is the way a State has decided to administer their State educational funds. It would totally override the State constitution in my State. It would override the State constitution in many States. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the rest of my time to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The amendment I am offering makes it clear that Governors should be consulted with regard to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act plans which are involved in this legislation but that the Congress is not going to override the provisions States have adopted in their constitutions and in their statutes for organizing and administering their educational programs. The Voinovich amendment--which is the second vote--in my view, is objectionable because it will give a veto to the Governor over any State plan for the expenditure of the Federal funds in that State. My State does not allow the Governor a veto. It has a provision for the Governor to appoint five members of our State school board--to be involved in that way. But the State school board has the responsibility under our constitution. I want to see to it that Congress does not try to override my State's constitution and the constitutions and statutes of quite a few States which have their own ways of administering their educational programs. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment that, again, I am offering on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Domenici. I believe this will preserve the existing arrangement we have between the Federal Government and the States. It will allow the States to exercise their sovereign right to determine how they will administer their educational programs. So I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. And when the time comes, I or Senator Kennedy or somebody will urge that the Voinovich amendment not be adopted, which is the vote following this vote.