Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask that an article that appears in this morning's New York Times, the September 27 New York Times, also be printed in the Record after my statement. This is an article by Paul Krugman entitled ``A Drop in the Barrel.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first let me say a word about the procedural morass that we find ourselves in, as I understand it. I do not claim to understand it all. The Democratic leader was trying to get the Senate to actually consider and vote on this Latino Fairness Act, which I strongly support. But in order to keep that from happening, I understand the majority leader came forward with a motion to proceed to S. 2557. Now, S. 2557 is a bill to protect the energy security of the United States and to decrease America's dependence on foreign oil sources. This is a bill, parts of which I support but many parts of which I cannot support because they have, in my view, wrongheaded policy judgments in them. But that is the National Energy Security Act of 2000 to which the majority leader made a motion to proceed. I am informed by those who follow this activity on the floor more closely than do I that there is no serious effort by the Republican majority to actually consider or vote on or pass any legislation regarding energy security; that that is not a subject which they believe has enough of a priority attached to it that it justifies any real action by this Senate. So we are somewhat on this issue because of a procedural effort to keep us from considering something else. That is just by way of background, to identify for people why I am here today speaking about an amendment which I would offer. If we ever did seriously consider this National Energy Security Act of 2000, then I would offer an amendment to that on behalf of myself, Senator Daschle, Senator Byrd, Senator Baucus, Senator Bayh, Senator Johnson, Senator Levin, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Akaka. The amendment I would offer would replace the text of S. 2557 in its entirety, and in its place it would offer a comprehensive approach to energy policy, much of which we originally introduced as S. 1833 nearly a year ago. In order to explain why I believe it would be good for this Congress and good for this Senate to go ahead and pass this legislation that I would offer as an amendment, let me just say a few things about the energy situation. There have been several speeches. I do not know about today; I haven't watched the floor proceedings all day, but I did see yesterday where several people were speaking about the problems we have with our energy supply. Those problems are real. With the supplies of crude oil and refined products and natural gas extremely tight, which they are, energy prices and the availability of some of these products are in the forefront of the minds of a lot of people. In my State, people are receiving in their mail notices from the utility companies saying the price of natural gas will be going up, their utility bills will be going up substantially this winter. So I believe it is essential we assess the current circumstance and that we develop a strategy for remedying the identified deficiencies. Current prices are extreme when we compare them with the relatively low prices that we have enjoyed for the past 10 years. Aside from the oil price spike at the time of the Gulf war, the average annual price of crude oil during the 1990s was about $15 a barrel. The price of natural gas is somewhat less volatile than oil, historically, but it was also quite low. It was $1.84 per thousand cubic feet. That was because of what was called by all who focused on it ``the gas bubble.'' This was excess supply following the restructuring of the natural gas markets. The reality is that oil and natural gas are commodities. They are commodities whose prices rise and fall just as those of any other commodity. Since oil and natural gas are often developed together out of common reserves, as they are in parts of my State, the dramatic drop-off in oil drilling in 1998 and 1999 had a direct impact on natural gas supply at the same time that it was impacting future oil supply. So true to what we all learned in Economics 101, once supply was reduced enough--with some direct market intervention by OPEC, I would add--the price of oil began to rise and drilling began again. Drilling is now going on at a robust pace around this country. While U.S. oil production overall has been in decline since 1970, the deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico have recently proven to be a very active oil and gas production area for our country. The deep water royalty incentives that were proposed by Senator Johnston when he was representing Louisiana in this body, which were also supported by this administration, have been a major contributor to the 65-percent increase in offshore oil production that has occurred under this administration. That is something that is often not focused on, but there has been a 65-percent increase in offshore oil production since this administration came into office. Natural gas production on Federal lands--and that is the bulk of the natural gas production in my State--has also increased 60 percent under this administration due, in part, to the development of coalbed methane. My State of New Mexico has been a major contributor to that growth in natural gas production. We look forward to a continuation of that trend. A recent survey by Salomon-Smith Barney projected the highest increase this year in worldwide spending on oil and gas exploration since 1981. The lion's share of that increased spending is directed toward North America, with companies planning to spend 76 percent more on natural gas projects alone this year than they did in 1999. So that is good news. However, those new supplies will not begin having a significant impact on natural gas prices until at least next spring or next summer. There has been considerable consternation about the President's decision just this last week to go forward with a swap of 30 million barrels of oil from the strategic petroleum reserve to address concerns about heating oil stocks. I want to offer to this debate, which has occurred sporadically here on the Senate floor, the following information from the International Energy Agency's September monthly oil market report. That report says that world oil demand is always highest in the fourth quarter of the year, and the IEA, the International Energy Agency, is predicting a drop in world oil demand in the first quarter of next year on the order of 1 million barrels per day. In the near term, however--and this is a quote from their report: The market is too fragile. It needs higher inventories to protect against circumstances such as an abnormally cold winter. Without adequate stock coverage, the market lumbers from one problem to another, creating instability in its wake and dragging prices ever higher. The reduction in world oil demand in the spring, coupled with the new production from non-OPEC sources, should bring prices down appreciably in the spring and summer of next year. I ask unanimous consent a page from the September IEA Oil Market Report be printed in the Record following my statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes about my amendment in the managers' package to the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate the chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New Mexico. First, I want to thank the committee chairman, Senator Smith, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Baucus, and Chairman Voinovich, as well as their fine staffs for all their good work on WRDA2000 (S. 2796). For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my state has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms. The flooding has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures, erosion of roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission conduits, contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks, damaged homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to automobile traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army Corps of Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic flooding problems. The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo, that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March 1998 and is now completed. The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate the chronic flooding problems in the valley. In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study, the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley. The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). I want to thank the EPW committee for authorizing this much needed feasibility study. The study began in March 1999 and is expected to be completed in February 2002. Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the Congress appropriated, $250,000 in Federal funding for the feasibility study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the Appropriations Committees in the House and Senate for again providing the full amount requested. Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding. At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established for the Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to waive the peak discharge criterion. I'd like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees, when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away. If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge criterion. During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps' technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project. This is not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last year. My amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing authorization. I do believe the unique situation in Bernalillo County warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations, and I thank the committee for accepting my amendment. Savings Clause Report Language

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on and give my support to a worthy program called National History Day. National History Day is a year-long, nonprofit program in which children in grades 6-12 research and create historical projects related to a broad annual theme. This year's theme was ``Turning points in History: People, Ideas, Events.'' Using this theme, students research their area of interest and create a project, which is then entered in an annual contest. The primary goal of the National History Day program is to revolutionize the techniques implemented in teaching and training our youth. What I want to emphasize today is the tremendous impact this unique and valuable program has had in my home state of New Mexico. New Mexico's involvement with National History Day began three years ago, and has continued to grow and enrich the lives of New Mexico's youth. The participants in the first year were few, but to date we have had more than one thousand young New Mexicans participate in the state competition. New Mexico students that participate in this program are given the opportunity to expand upon critical thinking and research skills, which in turn help them in all subject areas. The projects they work on give them a greater appreciation of historical events that have helped shape their own hometowns as well as their nation. This hands on approach to history is an innovative way to get students excited and genuinely interested in our great nation's history. I know that with our support, the National History Day program will continue to grow, and I believe that this growth is essential for today's students. When students do not have an opportunity to participate in this program, they miss out on a chance to grow and to better themselves. As Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough states: Knowledge of history is the precondition of political intelligence. Without history, a society shares no common memory of where it has been, of what its core values are, or what decisions in the past account for the present circumstance. National History Day gives students an opportunity to learn of our history and its importance in their daily lives. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this program.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the amendments that have been voted on in relation to H.R. 4444, a bill that authorizes permanent normal trade relations with China. Over the last two weeks or so, several of my colleagues have introduced very thoughtful legislation specifically designed to address problems that exist at this time in China. Taken alone and at face value, many of these amendments--from human and labor rights to technology transfer to religious freedom to weapons proliferation to clean energy--have been worthy and deserving of my support. At any other time, I would have in fact voted for many of these amendments. I personally am of the view that Chinese officials must continue to make significant and tangible efforts in the future to transform their country's policies to coincide with international rules and norms. Although China is indeed making a very difficult and gradual transition to a more democratic society and a market-based economy, much remains to be done. Chinese officials must reinvigorate their commitment to change, and they will inevitably be open to criticism from both the United States and the international community until they do so. But this said, it is clear that any amendment attached to H.R. 4444 at this time will force the bill into conference, and at this late stage in the session, that means that the bill would effectively be dead. In my mind, this bill is far too important to have this outcome. I believe that H.R. 4444 is one of the most important pieces of legislation we will consider this year, for two reasons. First, it creates new opportunities for American workers, farmers, and businesses in the Chinese market. This bill is not about Chinese access to the U.S. market as this already exists. The bill is about U.S. access to the Chinese market, because if this bill is passed we will see a significant change in the way China has to conduct business. As a result of this bill, we will over time see a reduction in tariff and non-tariff barriers, liberalization in domestic regulatory regimes, and protections against import surges, unfair pricing, and illegal investment practices. If we do not take action on this bill this year, we will be at a tremendous competitive disadvantage in the Chinese market relative to companies from other countries. We cannot let this happen to American workers. In my state of New Mexico alone we have seen dramatic results from increased trade with China. Our exports to China totaled $147 million in 1998, up from $366,000 in 1993. China was New Mexico's 35th largest export destination in 1993, but now it ranks fourth in this regard. In 1993 only six product groups from New Mexico were heading to China as exports, but in 1998 there were sixteen product groups flowing in that direction, from electrical equipment and components to chemicals to agriculture to furniture. In short, increased trade opportunities with China translates directly to increased economic welfare for New Mexico, and all of the United States. A second reason this legislation is so important relates to U.S. national security. From where I stand, China is playing an increasingly active role in Asia and the world, and it is in our national interest to engage them in discussions concerning these activities on an ongoing and intensive basis. There is simply no benefit to be gained from attempting to isolate or ignore China at this time. It has not worked in the past, and it will not work in the future. I am convinced that our failure to pass this bill will limit our country's ability to influence the direction and quality of change in China. I have visited China, and I can tell you that the China of today looks dramatically different than the China of five years ago. This change is at least in part a direct result of our interaction with the Chinese people. As the PNTR debate moves forward, Congress must decide how it would like China to look five, ten, fifteen, twenty years from now. Do we want China to be a competitor, or an enemy? In my view, PNTR will place us in a particularly strong position to promote positive change in China and increase our capacity to pursue our long-term national interest. Although I am certainly sympathetic to the objectives of many of the amendments offered by my colleagues, I feel the issue of trade with China deserves to be debated on its own merits. For this reason, I have chosen to vote against the amendments offered by my colleagues. But I would like to emphasize at this time that I look forward to the opportunity to address them in the future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I commend Chairman McCain, Senator Hollings and the members of the Commerce Committee for moving expeditiously to pass this Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill. The bill includes requirements for each pipeline to develop an integrity management plan to address the specific circumstances of each individual pipeline. There is reference in the Pipeline Safety Act, and the amendments, to circumstances such as pipelines in environmentally sensitive and densely populated areas warranting special attention, but no reference to pipelines that are attached to bridges at such places as river crossings or in other exposed circumstances. The tragic accident in my State of New Mexico was adjacent to a river crossing. The rupture occurred along a buried section of the pipe just before the pipe emerged and was attached to the bridge. I am very concerned that these pipelines are vulnerable to many different types of damage, including even that from a hunter's stray bullet or an auto accident. I would like to ask the chairman and members of the committee whether these exposed pipes on bridges are a category given special attention?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senators for that clarification.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to address briefly the issue of funding for the fundamental science and engineering research supported by the Department of Energy. The DOE is the leading source of federal support for the physical sciences in the nation. Not many people know that, but it is true. DOE and its predecessor agencies developed this broad portfolio of physical sciences research in pursuit of the agency's statutory missions. To understand energy and its myriad transformations, you have to know a lot about the properties of matter, and of energy flows in matter, at a very fundamental level. In order to conserve energy by, for example, running industrial processes at higher temperatures that have greater thermodynamic efficiencies, you have to know a lot about basic materials science. These are research needs that other science agencies, such as the NSF, cannot meet within their missions and funding levels. It's an important reason why we have a Department of Energy, to begin with. DOE is also a crucial supporter of scientific research in the life sciences. In the life sciences, the DOE initiated the Human Genome Program and co-manges this enormously important and promising effort with the NIH. DOE also plays a leading role in supporting other biological sciences, environmental sciences, mathematics, computing, and engineering. In all these areas, its basic research contributions relate to DOE's energy missions. As a consequence of these research investments, the DOE is responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding to scientists and students at our colleges and universities. In addition to the overall size of DOE's basic science funding, the type of activities that DOE funds has a special character among the federal science agencies. One of the primary responsibilities of DOE's Office of Science is to support large-scale specialized user facilities focussed on national scientific priorities. This particular mission makes the Office of Science unique among, and complementary to, the scientific programs for other federal science agencies, including the NIH and NSF. Each year over 15,000 sponsored scientists and students from academe, industry, and government--many funded by agencies other than the DOE--conduct cutting-edge experiments at the Department's research facilities. Every State in the country has scientists and engineers with a stake in DOE's user facilities. One of the challenges the Office of Science has faced during the past decade is that its funding has been reduced by approximately 13 percent in constant dollars. Other science agencies, such as NIH, have been growing strongly, while the DOE Office of Science has significantly less funding today, in constant dollars, than 10 years ago. These reductions have prevented the Office of Science from fully participating in new initiatives in exciting technical areas important to DOE's statutory missions such as high performance computing and nanotech- nology. More troublesome, the declining funding for the Office of Science has reduced the number of scientists and students able to conduct research suing DOE's national user facilities. In fact, DOE's national and university-based laboratories are currently operating well below their optimum levels, especially in light of growing demand from the scientific community. DOE's scientific user communities and DOE's own scientific advisory committees have completed a number of reports over the past year to two to put a number on what DOE's science budget should look like, in order to fully take advantage of the scientific opportunities that are out there. They estimated that in FY 2001 alone a funding level of over $3.3 billion can easily be justified in order to support research and to fully utilize and modernize DOE facilities. I am mindful that both the Chairman and the Ranking member of this appropriations subcommittee would like to make more money available for DOE's science programs. They have made statements yesterday that they will seek additional funds for the non-defense side of this bill as it moves forward. As they know, Senator Frank Murkowski, and I are circulating a letter in the Senate for signature by Senators to indicate their support for this goal. It's a letter that I hope strengthens their hand in getting a better allocation as we move forward. The letter is addressed to the bipartisan leadership of the Senate, and is already attracting strong bipartisan support. I hope that when the Conference Report on this bill is finally written, the FY 2001 funding level for the DOE Office of Science will be no less than the President's request level of $3.16 billion. I hope that the funding level can be higher, in some areas, if at all possible. And I hope that both the President and Congress will provide significant increases in funding for the DOE Office of Science in future years in order to sustain the Office's steady growth. Such funding increases are merited by the important and unique work being conducted by the DOE Office of Science. The funding increases would also be consistent with the Senate's passage of a bill that both Senator Domenici and I were original co-sponsors of the Federal Research Investment Act (S. 296) which calls for doubling investment in civilian research and development efforts.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes about my amendment to the Energy and Water Appropriations Bill now before the Senate. My amendment is needed to allow the Army Corps of Engineers to continue to work on a feasibility study to alleviate the chronic flooding in the Southwest Valley of Albuquerque, New Mexico. First, I want to thank the chairman, Senator Domenici, the distinguished ranking member, Senator Reid, and their fine staffs for all their good work on this Energy and Water Appropriations bill. This bill provides vital funding for a number of programs that are important to my state of New Mexico and to the nation, and I thank them for their efforts. For a number of years the Southwest Valley area of Albuquerque in my state of New Mexico has been prone to flooding after major rainstorms. The flooding has caused damage to irrigation and drainage structures, erosion of roadways, pavement, telephone and electrical transmission conduits, contaminated water and soil due to overflowing septic tanks, damaged homes, businesses, and farms, and presented hazards to automobile traffic. In 1997, Bernalillo County approached the Army Corps Engineers to request a reconnaissance study of the chronic flooding problems The study area encompassed 17.8 square miles of mostly residential neighborhoods along the banks of the Rio Grande in the Southwest Valley and the 50 square miles on the West Mesa, including the Isleta Pueblo, that drain into the valley. The reconnaissance study began in March 1998 and is now completed. The conclusions of the reconnaissance study define the magnitude of the continuing flooding problem in the Southwest Valley. The study also established a clear federal interest in the drainage project, found a positive cost to benefit ratio for the project, and identified work items necessary to begin designing a range of solutions to alleviate the chronic flooding problems in the valley. In 1999, based on the positive findings of the reconnaissance study, the Environment and Public Works Committee authorized the Army Corps of Engineers to conduct a full study to determine the feasibility of a project for flood damage reduction in Albuquerque's Southwest Valley. The authorization is contained in section 433 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1999--P.L. 106-53. I want to thank the EPW committee for authorizing this much needed feasibility study. The study began in March 1999 and is expected to be completed in February 2002. Currently, Bernalillo County, the Albuquerque Metropolitan Arroyo Flood Control Authority and the Corps are working cooperatively on the feasibility study. Last year, the administration requested, and the Congress appropriated $250,000 in federal funding for the feasibility study. This year, the request was for $330,000. I want to thank the committee for again providing the full amount requested. Last July I had an opportunity to meet with the engineers from the Corps, the County, and AMAFCA to get an update on the study and to tour the areas in the Southwest Valley that are subject to chronic flooding. At the end of the tour, the Corps indicated to me that based on the initial results of the feasibility study, the flooding there was quite severe but the project did not seem to meet the Corps' required flow criterion of 1800 cubic feet per second for the 100-year flood. These flow criteria are outlined in the Engineering Regulations established for Corps. Because of the obvious severity of the flooding, the engineers requested a legislative waiver of the regulations. Without a waiver, the Corps could not continue as a partner in the project. They also indicated the Corps' regulations do not contain any provision to waive the peak discharge criterion. I would like to take a few moments to describe briefly the unique situation in the Southwest Valley that necessitates a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations. The land along the west side of the Rio Grande is essentially flat. The river is contained by large earthen levees, which were built for flood control. When a river is contained this way by levees, the sediment accumulates in the river bed, slowly raising the level of the river. Of course, if there were no levees, when sediment builds up, the river would simply change course to a lower level. However, over the years, as the sediment has continued to accumulate in the Rio Grande, the level of the river within the levees is now higher than the surrounding land. Thus, when there are heavy rains during the monsoon season, the runoff has nowhere to go--it simply flows into large pools on the valley floor, flooding homes and farms. The water can't flow uphill into the river, so it stays there until it either evaporates or is pumped up and hauled away. If the flood water sits in large pools and isn't flowing, it clearly can't meet any criterion based on the flow rate of water. Indeed, given the unique nature of the flooding in the Southwest Valley, most areas subject to chronic flood damage do not meet the Corps' peak discharge criterion. During my visit in July, the three partners in the feasibility study specifically asked me for help in obtaining a waiver of the Corps' technical requirements to deal with this special situation. My amendment provides the necessary waiver the Corps needs to continue to work in partnership with the county and AMAFCA on this project. This is not a new authorization; Congress authorized this study last year. My amendment is a simple technical fix to the existing authorization. Similar language is already in the House companion to this Energy and Water appropriations bill. I do believe the unique situation in Bernalillo County warrants a waiver of the Corps' standard regulations, and I hope the Senate will adopt my amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious issue currently pending in the Senate--pipeline safety. On August 19, there was a tragic pipeline accident in my state of New Mexico. A natural gas transmission line ruptured at 5:30 a.m. that Saturday morning in a rural area south of Carlsbad, NM. Unfortunately, the rupture occurred near a popular fishing spot along the Pecos river. Two families were camped below the bridge traversed by the pipeline. Eleven people, including five small children, died when their favorite camping spot was overcome by heat and flames. I have just learned that the one survivor, Amanda Smith, died earlier today. I would like to include a couple of articles about the victims to be printed in the Record after my statement. They should be remembered as individuals, not mere statistics. This was a human tragedy I can barely describe. I spoke briefly with Martha Chapman, mother of two of the victims, and grandmother of two of the children. She had just returned to Carlsbad for the funeral from Lubbock where she had been keeping vigil at the bedside of her daughter-in-law. She was devastated. She said her whole life was gone. She begged me to do what I could to make sure something like this would never happen to another family. I had no words that could ease her grief, but I promised to do what I could when I returned to Washington. That afternoon I went out to the site to see firsthand the damage and what was being done to determine the cause of the rupture. I spent several hours with Kelley Coyner, the chief pipeline safety official at the Department of Transportation, and some of her engineers and inspectors. What became abundantly clear to me is that the Office of Pipeline Safety does not have adequate resources to carry out its mandate. There are only 55 inspectors for the entire interstate pipeline system. Secondly, the agency needs the additional authority it has requested in the current reauthorization bill to address the different circumstances on individual pipelines. The first thing we need to do is to ensure the Office of Pipeline Safety has the necessary resources to protect the public safety and the environment. The budget of the Office of Pipeline Safety is fully reimbursed by user fees charged to the pipeline operators, yet for the last five years the Congress has under funded the agency's budget request. For FY 2001 the request was $47 million. The Senate has appropriated $43 million, the House only $40 million. I urge the conferees to increase the appropriation for FY 2001 to at least the requested level. Second, we need to pass the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill. The bill reported by the Commerce Committee requires each and every interstate natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline to develop and implement an integrity management plan. This approach will give the Office of Pipeline Safety the authority to impose more rigorous requirements, as necessary, to address areas with the greatest likelihood of failures and on aging pipelines and those in populated or environmentally sensitive areas. This bill is a major step toward ensuring the safety of our pipeline infrastructure. I am concerned, though, that the authorization levels included in the bill as filed may not be adequate for the task of a very individualized approach that will require a significant increase in staffing to address regional differences and community-specific needs. I would like to commend the efforts of Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senators Murray and Gorton and their staff, who have all worked hard to move the reauthorization forward. I also want to acknowledge Senators Breaux and Brownback for their efforts to include a workable set of requirements that can be fully implemented and enforced. Although the National Transportation Safety Board has not determined the cause of the accident in New Mexico, it appears that internal corrosion was a major factor. The transmission line in New Mexico ruptured at a point near a sharp bend in the pipe. An electronic internal inspection device, commonly called a smart pig, which is used for detecting corrosion in a pipeline, could not be run through that section of pipe because of the bend. Currently, about the only way to inspect sections of pipe such as this is to dig up the pipe and evaluate it directly. The company in New Mexico is doing just that along nearly 400 miles of pipeline to ensure there are not any other vulnerable spots along the pipe. But, with nearly 500,000 miles, and growing, of transmission lines across the country, this is not an optimal solution from the standpoint of time or cost. This country has the technological capability to collect data from the outer reaches of the solar system; we should be able to develop technologies to measure pipeline integrity under six feet of soil without digging up thousands of miles of pipe. I asked one of the scientists from Sandia National Laboratories, one of the Department of Energy's multipurpose labs, to come to Carlsbad with me to visit the site of the accident and to talk to the pipeline safety experts about the gaps in our technical capabilities. The national labs have capabilities for remote sensing, satellite monitoring and materials development that could surely be adapted for better testing and inspection of the pipeline infrastructure. I am also wondering whether MEMS, the efforts at miniaturizing electronic equipment, could be applied to develop a smart pig, or device with the same purpose, to negotiate older pipelines. Sandia has been working on a project to upgrade the Russian pipeline system, the scientists have the knowledge and expertise on pipeline operations to benefit our own system. Since returning from Carlsbad, I have been working to develop a framework for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. The Departments of Transportation and Energy, as well as a number of industry research groups, including the Pipeline Research Council International and the Gas Technology Institute, currently conduct research on pipeline integrity, but there is no coordinated, prioritized plan to ensure the most critical issues are being addressed in the most effective manner. I am introducing a bill today, the Pipeline Integrity, Safety and Reliability Research and Development Act of 2000, that will set up such a structure led by the Department of Transportation. I want to thank Senators McCain, Hollings, Murray, Gorton, Robb, Brownback, Breaux, Domenici, Landrieu, Kerry and Torricelli for cosponsoring this bill. The bill directs DOT and DOE to work with an Advisory Committee set up by the National Academy of Sciences to develop a five-year accelerated plan of action to address the most critical R&D needs to ensure pipeline integrity, safety and reliability. The Advisory Committee would include representatives of the natural gas, oil and petroleum product pipelines, the national labs, universities, the industry research groups, state pipeline safety officials, environmental organizations, pipeline safety advocates and any other technical experts the Academy includes. According to a recent GAO report, ``From 1989 through 1998, pipeline accidents resulted in an average of about 22 fatalities per year. Fatalities from pipeline accidents are relatively low when compared with those from accidents involving other forms of freight transportation: On average about 66 people die each year from barge accidents, about 590 from railroad accidents, and about 5100 from truck accidents.'' Recent accidents, including the tragedy in my state, have undermined public confidence in the safety of pipelines. As policymakers we must take responsibility for restoring that confidence. Natural gas and liquid pipelines are a critical element of our nation's energy infrastructure. They provide a cost-effective and relatively safe means of delivering energy. As the economy has grown, and become increasingly urbanized, siting new pipelines has become more and more challenging. At the same time, the importance of these pipelines has increased dramatically. Incidents on two gasoline pipelines, relatively unnoticed since no one was injured, reduced their operations at a critical time this summer contributing to a gasoline price spike of $2.50 a gallon in the northern Midwest. The rupture of this major natural gas transmission line in New Mexico reduced supplies into California at a critical time of peak electricity demand. I hope we don't experience a major failure of a product line into the northeast this fall or winter which could send the price heating oil off the charts. I plan to offer my bill as an amendment to the pipeline safety reauthorization when it comes before the Senate. As the ranking member on the Energy Committee and representative of a state crisscrossed with thousands of miles of pipelines, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill with my amendment. I further urge you to support full funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety and the R&D program. Let me indicate the cosponsors of this legislation: Senators McCain, Hollings, Murray, Brownback, Domenici, Breaux, Robb, Torricelli, Gorton, Kerry, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill and two articles printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to address a serious issue currently pending in the Senate--pipeline safety. On August 19, there was a tragic pipeline accident in my state of New Mexico. A natural gas transmission line ruptured at 5:30 a.m. that Saturday morning in a rural area south of Carlsbad, NM. Unfortunately, the rupture occurred near a popular fishing spot along the Pecos river. Two families were camped below the bridge traversed by the pipeline. Eleven people, including five small children, died when their favorite camping spot was overcome by heat and flames. I have just learned that the one survivor, Amanda Smith, died earlier today. I would like to include a couple of articles about the victims to be printed in the Record after my statement. They should be remembered as individuals, not mere statistics. This was a human tragedy I can barely describe. I spoke briefly with Martha Chapman, mother of two of the victims, and grandmother of two of the children. She had just returned to Carlsbad for the funeral from Lubbock where she had been keeping vigil at the bedside of her daughter-in-law. She was devastated. She said her whole life was gone. She begged me to do what I could to make sure something like this would never happen to another family. I had no words that could ease her grief, but I promised to do what I could when I returned to Washington. That afternoon I went out to the site to see firsthand the damage and what was being done to determine the cause of the rupture. I spent several hours with Kelley Coyner, the chief pipeline safety official at the Department of Transportation, and some of her engineers and inspectors. What became abundantly clear to me is that the Office of Pipeline Safety does not have adequate resources to carry out its mandate. There are only 55 inspectors for the entire interstate pipeline system. Secondly, the agency needs the additional authority it has requested in the current reauthorization bill to address the different circumstances on individual pipelines. The first thing we need to do is to ensure the Office of Pipeline Safety has the necessary resources to protect the public safety and the environment. The budget of the Office of Pipeline Safety is fully reimbursed by user fees charged to the pipeline operators, yet for the last five years the Congress has under funded the agency's budget request. For FY 2001 the request was $47 million. The Senate has appropriated $43 million, the House only $40 million. I urge the conferees to increase the appropriation for FY 2001 to at least the requested level. Second, we need to pass the Pipeline Safety Reauthorization bill. The bill reported by the Commerce Committee requires each and every interstate natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline to develop and implement an integrity management plan. This approach will give the Office of Pipeline Safety the authority to impose more rigorous requirements, as necessary, to address areas with the greatest likelihood of failures and on aging pipelines and those in populated or environmentally sensitive areas. This bill is a major step toward ensuring the safety of our pipeline infrastructure. I am concerned, though, that the authorization levels included in the bill as filed may not be adequate for the task of a very individualized approach that will require a significant increase in staffing to address regional differences and community-specific needs. I would like to commend the efforts of Senator McCain, chairman of the Commerce Committee, and Senators Murray and Gorton and their staff, who have all worked hard to move the reauthorization forward. I also want to acknowledge Senators Breaux and Brownback for their efforts to include a workable set of requirements that can be fully implemented and enforced. Although the National Transportation Safety Board has not determined the cause of the accident in New Mexico, it appears that internal corrosion was a major factor. The transmission line in New Mexico ruptured at a point near a sharp bend in the pipe. An electronic internal inspection device, commonly called a smart pig, which is used for detecting corrosion in a pipeline, could not be run through that section of pipe because of the bend. Currently, about the only way to inspect sections of pipe such as this is to dig up the pipe and evaluate it directly. The company in New Mexico is doing just that along nearly 400 miles of pipeline to ensure there are not any other vulnerable spots along the pipe. But, with nearly 500,000 miles, and growing, of transmission lines across the country, this is not an optimal solution from the standpoint of time or cost. This country has the technological capability to collect data from the outer reaches of the solar system; we should be able to develop technologies to measure pipeline integrity under six feet of soil without digging up thousands of miles of pipe. I asked one of the scientists from Sandia National Laboratories, one of the Department of Energy's multipurpose labs, to come to Carlsbad with me to visit the site of the accident and to talk to the pipeline safety experts about the gaps in our technical capabilities. The national labs have capabilities for remote sensing, satellite monitoring and materials development that could surely be adapted for better testing and inspection of the pipeline infrastructure. I am also wondering whether MEMS, the efforts at miniaturizing electronic equipment, could be applied to develop a smart pig, or device with the same purpose, to negotiate older pipelines. Sandia has been working on a project to upgrade the Russian pipeline system, the scientists have the knowledge and expertise on pipeline operations to benefit our own system. Since returning from Carlsbad, I have been working to develop a framework for a collaborative R&D effort directed by the Department of Transportation with the assistance of the Department of Energy and the National Academy of Sciences. The Departments of Transportation and Energy, as well as a number of industry research groups, including the Pipeline Research Council International and the Gas Technology Institute, currently conduct research on pipeline integrity, but there is no coordinated, prioritized plan to ensure the most critical issues are being addressed in the most effective manner. I am introducing a bill today, the Pipeline Integrity, Safety and Reliability Research and Development Act of 2000, that will set up such a structure led by the Department of Transportation. I want to thank Senators McCain, Hollings, Murray, Gorton, Robb, Brownback, Breaux, Domenici, Landrieu, Kerry and Torricelli for cosponsoring this bill. The bill directs DOT and DOE to work with an Advisory Committee set up by the National Academy of Sciences to develop a five-year accelerated plan of action to address the most critical R&D needs to ensure pipeline integrity, safety and reliability. The Advisory Committee would include representatives of the natural gas, oil and petroleum product pipelines, the national labs, universities, the industry research groups, state pipeline safety officials, environmental organizations, pipeline safety advocates and any other technical experts the Academy includes. According to a recent GAO report, ``From 1989 through 1998, pipeline accidents resulted in an average of about 22 fatalities per year. Fatalities from pipeline accidents are relatively low when compared with those from accidents involving other forms of freight transportation: On average about 66 people die each year from barge accidents, about 590 from railroad accidents, and about 5100 from truck accidents.'' Recent accidents, including the tragedy in my state, have undermined public confidence in the safety of pipelines. As policymakers we must take responsibility for restoring that confidence. Natural gas and liquid pipelines are a critical element of our nation's energy infrastructure. They provide a cost-effective and relatively safe means of delivering energy. As the economy has grown, and become increasingly urbanized, siting new pipelines has become more and more challenging. At the same time, the importance of these pipelines has increased dramatically. Incidents on two gasoline pipelines, relatively unnoticed since no one was injured, reduced their operations at a critical time this summer contributing to a gasoline price spike of $2.50 a gallon in the northern Midwest. The rupture of this major natural gas transmission line in New Mexico reduced supplies into California at a critical time of peak electricity demand. I hope we don't experience a major failure of a product line into the northeast this fall or winter which could send the price heating oil off the charts. I plan to offer my bill as an amendment to the pipeline safety reauthorization when it comes before the Senate. As the ranking member on the Energy Committee and representative of a state crisscrossed with thousands of miles of pipelines, I urge my colleagues to support passage of the pipeline safety reauthorization bill with my amendment. I further urge you to support full funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety and the R&D program. Let me indicate the cosponsors of this legislation: Senators McCain, Hollings, Murray, Brownback, Domenici, Breaux, Robb, Torricelli, Gorton, Kerry, and Landrieu. I ask unanimous consent to have the bill and two articles printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on July 24, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, brought before the Senate a report on payments made by the Project on Government Oversight, a public interest group commonly called ``POGO,'' to two federal employees. Unfortunately, the chairman referred to the report in his remarks as a ``committee report.'' It is not, and I think we need to set the record straight on that point. The rules of the Senate give the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, like all our standing committees, broad authority to ``make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction.'' But the power to make investigations rests with the Committee as a whole. It is not vested in the chairman or any one Senator. In January, at the chairman's request, the Comptroller General detailed an employee of the General Accounting Office, Mr. Paul Thompson, to the committee to conduct a ``preliminary inquiry'' into the payments. In February, the chairman informed the committee that the inquiry was underway and that he would ``make recommendations'' to the committee ``as soon as we have something tangible.'' The chairman has leapt from ``preliminary inquiry'' to a final report without any intervening action or consideration by the committee. The committee never authorized Mr. Thompson's investigation and it never approved his report. I first learned about it after the chairman posted it on the Internet. Nor was the report written or approved by the General Accounting Office. Although Mr. Thompson is a GAO employee, he was detailed to the committee. So far as I can tell, no one at the General Accounting Office participated in the investigation or in writing the report. Mr. Thompson's activities were not subject to the professional standards of conduct that govern GAO investigations, and his report was not subject to review and approval by senior GAO officials. If the chairman had asked the committee to approve Mr. Thompson's report, I would have voted against it. If a majority of the committee had agreed to adopt the report as its own, I would have filed minority views. Since I was not given that opportunity, I will state my views for the Record. POGO's payments to Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir cannot be understood in isolation. They must be viewed in the larger context of the ongoing controversy over federal oil and gas royalties. Oil companies that produce oil on federal land are, by law, required to pay royalties to the Federal Government based on the value of the oil they produce from federal leases. Many of the major oil companies have been accused of undervaluing and, thus, underpaying the royalties they owe to the American people. The alleged underpayments total many hundreds of millions of dollars. A few years ago, POGO and various private individuals sued the oil companies under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act allows a private citizen to sue anyone who has defrauded the Government. If successful, the person bringing the suit, known as a ``relator,'' is entitled to a share of the money recovered by the Government as a result of the suit. The essential facts surrounding the POGO payments are not in dispute. POGO asked Robert A. Berman, an employee at the Department of the Interior, and Robert A. Speir, an employee at the Department of Energy, to join its False Claims Act suit. Neither man agreed. POGO then offered to share any money it received from its suit with the two men and they agreed. In January 1998, they put their agreement in writing. In August 1998, Mobil Oil Corporation settled the claims against it by paying the Government and the relators a total of $45 million. In November 1998, POGO got about $1.2 million from the settlement and it paid Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir $383,600 apiece out of its share. The current dispute centers on why POGO made those payments. POGO characterized the payments as ``awards'' for the two men's ``decade- long public-spirited work to expose and stop the oil companies' underpayment of royalties for the production of crude oil on federal and Indian lands.'' POGO's opponents believe POGO had sinister motives. Mr. Thompson's report attempts to substantiate the opponents' suspicions. I am troubled by Mr. Thompson's report for several reasons. First, I am troubled by the very nature of Mr. Thompson's report. In his letter of transmittal to Chairman Murkowski, Mr. Thompson makes very serious charges against POGO; its chairman, Mr. Banta; its executive director, Ms. Brian; and the two federal employees who received the payments, Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir. He accuses POGO of paying the two men ``to influence the Department [of the Interior] toward taking actions and adopting policies'' benefiting both POGO and the two employees. Without saying so directly, Mr. Thompson's report insinuates that POGO and the two employees may have broken federal criminal laws against bribery, the payment and acceptance of gratuities, and the payment and acceptance of private compensation for government service. Yet nowhere in his 42-page report does Mr. Thompson present the evidence necessary to back up his charges. In place of evidence, he offers only theories, speculation, suspicions, circular reasoning, and his personal conviction that all assertions of innocence from Ms. Brian and Messrs. Banta, Berman, and Speir are untrustworthy. Second, I am troubled by the report's lack of a coherent theory of the case. Mr. Thompson laboriously rebuts the explanations offered by POGO, but never meets his own burdens of production and persuasion. Part of his problem may stem from the fact that the chairman never defined the scope of the inquiry. Mr. Thompson states that the ``chief concern'' behind the inquiry was ``whether the payments represent an improper influence upon the Department of the Interior's development of its new oil royalty valuation policy,'' but his report focuses little attention on this issue. Whether the payments improperly influenced the Department of the Interior's oil valuation rule is, of course, a legitimate concern of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. In his transmittal letter, Mr. Thompson concludes that the rule ``may have been improperly influenced by'' the payments. Yet his own report fails to support that conclusion. The report states that the two men's involvement in the rulemaking ``terminated'' around December 1996, before the Department of the Interior published its proposed rule in January 1997. After Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir stopped working on the rule, it was substantially revised over the course of 8 public comment periods, 20 public meetings and workshops, the review of thousands of pages of testimony, and close congressional oversight. Mr. Thompson's assertion that POGO's payments may have ``improperly influenced'' the final rule simply is not supported by the rulemaking record. The bulk of Mr. Thompson's report is devoted to his search for an improper motive for the payments. I do not believe that this is an appropriate use of the committee's investigative powers. The matter is now under investigation by the Inspector General of the Department of the Interior and the Public Integrity Section of the Department of Justice--as it should be. The appearance of impropriety created by the payments warrants investigation, but by the proper authorities. It is for the appropriate law enforcement agencies and, ultimately, the courts, not the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to decide if any laws were broken. This is particularly the case where, as here, the targets of the committee's investigation are not senior policy officials, but private citizens or low-ranking civil servants, and where, as here, the committee has shown a strong bias against the targets of its probe. The chairman of the Energy Subcommittee publicly declared the payments to be ``grossly unethical'' soon after they came to light in May 1999, and the chairman of the full committee publicly declared them to involve ``apparent gross impropriety'' only a month after Mr. Thompson began his investigation. The Framers wisely kept law enforcement and judicial powers out of Congress's hands, because, as Alexander Hamilton said, ``of the natural propensity of [legislative] bodies to party divisions,'' and their fear that ``the pestilential breath of [party] faction may poison the fountains of justice.'' The strong political feelings recently displayed in the House Committee on Resources over this matter bear this out. Over two centuries ago, Benjamin Franklin observed that ``There is no kind of dishonesty into which otherwise good people more easily and frequently fall than that of defrauding the Government.'' All too often, otherwise good people are tempted to cheat their Government because they think they can get away with it. All too often, they do, because most fraud against the Government goes unreported. Most federal employees are reluctant to report fraud because they believe nothing will be done if they do report it, or because they are afraid of reprisal. For this reason, Congress amended the False Claims Act in 1986, in the words of the Judiciary Committee, ``to encourage any individual knowing of Government fraud to bring that information forward.'' The 1986 amendments offer large rewards to whistleblowers who bring a successful false claims action and afford new protections against employer retaliation. While the amendments do not expressly authorize federal employees to file whistleblower suits, the courts have generally read the amended law to permit them to, since the courts recognize that federal employees are often in the best position to uncover and report government fraud. What happened here seems fairly clear. Two federal employees had information they believed showed that oil companies were defrauding the Government. They brought it forward to their agencies. They also, it seems likely, may have shared some of that information with POGO. They could have openly joined POGO's False Claims Act suit but, for whatever reason, they chose not to. They chose instead to become, in effect, silent partners in POGO's suit. POGO generously, if foolishly, shared its windfall with them. Probably all concerned would now agree that this arrangement was a serious mistake. POGO has handed its opponents a powerful weapon with which to wound its credibility and its effectiveness. It has not only brought down a world of trouble on itself, Mr. Berman, and Mr. Speir, but it has deflected attention away from the question of whether the oil companies defrauded the Government to the matter before us. At the very least, the payment of large sums of money by an outside source to a federal employee for work related activities creates an appearance of impropriety. If the appropriate authorities ultimately determine that the payments to Mr. Berman and Mr. Speir were not unlawful, then Congress may need to tighten the conflict of interest laws to more clearly bar federal employees from accepting such payments in the future, or to amend the False Claims Act to prevent federal employees from aiding or benefiting from False Claims Act suits. Crafting a legislative solution that would prevent a recurrence of this problem in the future would, in my view, be a more constructive--and far more appropriate--use of the Senate's time and energy than trying to build a case against POGO and Messrs. Berman and Speir. Any changes in the current laws should, however, be carefully drawn to avoid shutting off the legitimate flow of allegations and information about government fraud and corruption from federal employees to organizations like POGO. These organizations play a valuable role in exposing government fraud and corruption. They offer a safe harbor to federal employees who may be unable or unwilling to come forward publicly on their own. We may not always agree with the causes they espouse or the allegations they make, but we would make a terrible mistake if we were to choke off the flow of allegations and information to them or still their voice. They must, of course, operate within the law. Good intentions do not give them, or the people that come to them, free rein to violate federal conflict of interest laws, agency ethnic rules, or the protective orders of the courts. If anything like that happened in this case, then POGO and the two federal employees should be held accountable by the appropriate law enforcement officials and the courts. But, as the Supreme Court has admonished us in the past, Congress is not a law enforcement agency or a judicial tribunal, and we should not presume to be one in this case. The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, like most of the Senate's standing committees, from time to time, has to conduct investigations into certain matters to do its job. The Energy Committee has, in recent years, conducted a number of sensitive investigations into serious allegations of wrongdoing leveled against senior Administration officials whose nominations were pending before the committee. Each of these investigations was handled very thoroughly and professionally on a bipartisan basis by the committee's own lawyers. Special, partisan investigations like Mr. Thompson's carry with them special problems. By focusing exclusively on proving the guilt of their chosen target, they tend to lose sight of the larger picture and their sense of proportion. Justice Robert Jackson warned us of this danger in the case of prosecutors who ``pick people'' they think they ``should get rather than cases that need to be prosecuted.'' With the law books filled with a great assortment of crimes, [Justice Jackson said,] a prosecutor stands a fair chance of finding at least a technical violation of some act on the part of almost anyone. In such a case, it is not a question of discovering the commission of a crime and then looking for the man who has committed it, it is a question of picking a man and then searching the law books, or putting investigators to work, to pin some offense on him. It is in this realm--in which the prosecutor picks some person he dislikes or desires to embarrass, or selects some group of unpopular persons and then looks for an offense, that the great danger of abuse of prosecuting power lies. It is here that law enforcement becomes personal, and the real crime becomes that of being unpopular with the predominant or governing group, being attached to the wrong political views, or being personally obnoxious to or in the way of the prosecutor himself. Sadly, I fear that has happened in this case.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his courtesy in allowing me to speak at this point. I speak not on the issue that is pending before the Senate but in morning business. I ask I be permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Security Family Relief Act, which is legislation designed to both revise current Social Security law and assist families living in New Mexico and across the United States. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with this issue, at present the Social Security Administration pays benefits in advance, and, thus, a check an individual receives from Social Security Administration during the month is calculated and paid in anticipation that the individual will be alive the entire month in which a payment was received. However, if a person dies during that month, the payment must be reimbursed in full to the Social Security Administration. If a person dies on the 5th of the month, or the 15th of the month, or the 25th of the month, none of this matters. If they die, they are no longer entitled to any benefits for that month, period. Furthermore, if a surviving spouse or family member uses a check received from the Social Security Administration for that month in which a family member had died, they must send it back--in full--to the Social Security Administration. Let me make this clear that this is not just a problem in the abstract. Indeed, the introduction of this bill is prompted by a very real experience faced by a family living in New Mexico. In this case, a constituent had a close relative pass away on December 31, 1999. The last day of the month. Not knowing it ran contrary to Social Security law, the family used the relative's last Social Security check to pay her final expenses. Only after these activities had occurred did they receive a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that they would have to return the check. Not just partial payment, but in full. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that this person was alive for the entire month. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that this person had expenses that had to be paid for after they had died. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that the surviving relatives had their own bills to pay, and that this additional expense imposed a burden on them that was difficult to manage. My constituents found this to absurd. Why, they asked, should they have to return a check for a relative that was alive, was accumulating expenses while she was alive, and deserved the money that was provided to her? Why, they asked, should they be required to pay for the relative's expenses when money should be available? Why should their emotional suffering be made all the more distressful by the addition of financial obligations not of their own making? I think these are good questions, and it is logical that Congress address them directly and in a manner that solves the problem at hand. From what I can see, they are right. Individuals that have worked over the years and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all that time, these folks have earned Social Security benefits and should receive them in full for the period that they are alive. As such, Social Security law should be written in such a way that allows the surviving spouse or family member to use the final check to take care of the remaining expenses, whether they be utilities, or mortgages, or car payments, or health care, or whatever needs to be taken care of. But although my constituents are sometimes critical of the Social Security Administration on this issue, in fairness that agency did not create this problem, Congress did. We wrote the law, and the Social Security Administration merely implements it. Any responsibility for what is happening belongs to us. We need to fix the law so the Social Security Administration can do its job better. It is my understanding that this issue has been discussed in the past by a number of Senators, but the revisions have gone nowhere because some felt it would impose an administrative burden on the Social Security Administration. I find this argument to be unconvincing as we clearly find a way to calculate complex equations that ultimately benefit that agency. There are those that now argue that tracking down appropriate beneficiaries would be difficult. But I find this to be quite unconvincing as well--after all, we do it already when someone dies. Surely there is a way to make the changes necessary. Surely the technology and expertise already exists. Surely it is time to stop making excuses and do what is right for Americans and their families. The legislation I am introducing today is easy to understand. The legislation says, quite simply, that an individual's entitlement to Social Security benefits shall continue through the month of his or her death, and after that individual's death, the entitlement shall be calculated in a manner proportionate to the days he or she was still alive. In other words, we are using a method of pro-rating to calculate what portion of the entitlement that individual will receive for the last month. Then, instead of being asked to return that final check, the surviving spouse or appropriate surviving family members will receive a check, which can then be used to settle the decedent's remaining expenses. I think this is a perfectly fair and reasonable approach to solving the problem at hand. And I think it is long overdue. It is my understanding that another bill addressing this problem has been introduced in the Senate by my colleague Senator Mikulski. Furthermore, she has introduced this legislation for several years in a row. I commend her for her awareness of this problem and her ongoing efforts to fix it. That said, it is also my understanding that her bill as written calculates these entitlement benefits on a half-month basis. In other words, if you die before the 15th, you get benefits for a half a month. If you die after the 15th, you are entitled to benefits for the entire month. To be honest, I see no obvious rationale for addressing the problem in this way, and I find a pro-rate strategy to be far more compelling. But this said, I look forward to working with her and her co-sponsors to repair the problem. We clearly have the same concerns. Mr. President, let me state in conclusion that this legislation represents only a partial fix of the current Social Security system. There is no doubt in my mind that much more needs to be done. We have talked about the issues far too long, and it is time to make a serious effort to make the Social Security solvent and effective. If had my way, this effort would begin tomorrow. But since it is not, this legislation can be considered one small but very important step on the path to reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have had with constituents and experts on three key issues. First, there is the problem related to the current cost and complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to an everyday businessperson. Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans-- 401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money to contribute to their pension plans are unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is available at all, and in many cases it is not. Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility, provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation. Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in each and every state. From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore, it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important, the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone, fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that we are seeing right now. But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason, it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy. As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal, narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to businesses who wish to offer them to their employees. Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits they provide. This has to change. But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular. Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans, specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans. Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate employees as to how to save for themselves. The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans, and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens' education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed. There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high, and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies because they identified with the company and were treated by employers as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for individuals as they considered a job. Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for most employees as they choose a job is personal development and professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at a single firm. The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long- term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly and coherently. But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for national economic growth and individual economic welfare. As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the future will result in several specific outcomes. First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable. We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active. The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top- to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole. This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It is mandated that the activities of the Commission will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort. This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie. Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and businesses alike. In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their retirement years. Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support for its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the Record immediately following my floor statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Social Security Family Relief Act, which is legislation designed to both revise current Social Security law and assist families living in New Mexico and across the United States. For those of my colleagues who are not familiar with this issue, at present the Social Security Administration pays benefits in advance, and, thus, a check an individual receives from Social Security Administration during the month is calculated and paid in anticipation that the individual will be alive the entire month in which a payment was received. However, if a person dies during that month, the payment must be reimbursed in full to the Social Security Administration. If a person dies on the 5th of the month, or the 15th of the month, or the 25th of the month, none of this matters. If they die, they are no longer entitled to any benefits for that month, period. Furthermore, if a surviving spouse or family member uses a check received from the Social Security Administration for that month in which a family member had died, they must send it back--in full--to the Social Security Administration. Let me make this clear that this is not just a problem in the abstract. Indeed, the introduction of this bill is prompted by a very real experience faced by a family living in New Mexico. In this case, a constituent had a close relative pass away on December 31, 1999. The last day of the month. Not knowing it ran contrary to Social Security law, the family used the relative's last Social Security check to pay her final expenses. Only after these activities had occurred did they receive a letter from the Social Security Administration stating that they would have to return the check. Not just partial payment, but in full. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that this person was alive for the entire month. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that this person had expenses that had to be paid for after they had died. No recognition on the part of the Social Security Administration that the surviving relatives had their own bills to pay, and that this additional expense imposed a burden on them that was difficult to manage. My constituents found this to absurd. Why, they asked, should they have to return a check for a relative that was alive, was accumulating expenses while she was alive, and deserved the money that was provided to her? Why, they asked, should they be required to pay for the relative's expenses when money should be available? Why should their emotional suffering be made all the more distressful by the addition of financial obligations not of their own making? I think these are good questions, and it is logical that Congress address them directly and in a manner that solves the problem at hand. From what I can see, they are right. Individuals that have worked over the years and have paid into the Social Security Trust Fund all that time, these folks have earned Social Security benefits and should receive them in full for the period that they are alive. As such, Social Security law should be written in such a way that allows the surviving spouse or family member to use the final check to take care of the remaining expenses, whether they be utilities, or mortgages, or car payments, or health care, or whatever needs to be taken care of. But although my constituents are sometimes critical of the Social Security Administration on this issue, in fairness that agency did not create this problem, Congress did. We wrote the law, and the Social Security Administration merely implements it. Any responsibility for what is happening belongs to us. We need to fix the law so the Social Security Administration can do its job better. It is my understanding that this issue has been discussed in the past by a number of Senators, but the revisions have gone nowhere because some felt it would impose an administrative burden on the Social Security Administration. I find this argument to be unconvincing as we clearly find a way to calculate complex equations that ultimately benefit that agency. There are those that now argue that tracking down appropriate beneficiaries would be difficult. But I find this to be quite unconvincing as well--after all, we do it already when someone dies. Surely there is a way to make the changes necessary. Surely the technology and expertise already exists. Surely it is time to stop making excuses and do what is right for Americans and their families. The legislation I am introducing today is easy to understand. The legislation says, quite simply, that an individual's entitlement to Social Security benefits shall continue through the month of his or her death, and after that individual's death, the entitlement shall be calculated in a manner proportionate to the days he or she was still alive. In other words, we are using a method of pro-rating to calculate what portion of the entitlement that individual will receive for the last month. Then, instead of being asked to return that final check, the surviving spouse or appropriate surviving family members will receive a check, which can then be used to settle the decedent's remaining expenses. I think this is a perfectly fair and reasonable approach to solving the problem at hand. And I think it is long overdue. It is my understanding that another bill addressing this problem has been introduced in the Senate by my colleague Senator Mikulski. Furthermore, she has introduced this legislation for several years in a row. I commend her for her awareness of this problem and her ongoing efforts to fix it. That said, it is also my understanding that her bill as written calculates these entitlement benefits on a half-month basis. In other words, if you die before the 15th, you get benefits for a half a month. If you die after the 15th, you are entitled to benefits for the entire month. To be honest, I see no obvious rationale for addressing the problem in this way, and I find a pro-rate strategy to be far more compelling. But this said, I look forward to working with her and her co-sponsors to repair the problem. We clearly have the same concerns. Mr. President, let me state in conclusion that this legislation represents only a partial fix of the current Social Security system. There is no doubt in my mind that much more needs to be done. We have talked about the issues far too long, and it is time to make a serious effort to make the Social Security solvent and effective. If had my way, this effort would begin tomorrow. But since it is not, this legislation can be considered one small but very important step on the path to reform. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. Thank you, Mr. President, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President: I rise today to introduce legislation calling for the establishment of a Pension Reform and Simplification Commission. The legislation derives directly from conversations I have had with constituents and experts on three key issues. First, there is the problem related to the current cost and complexity of private pension plans. In my view current regulations place an unnecessary burden on small and medium business as they attempt to adopt pension plans. Indeed, even the most simple plans are often so complicated in form and function as to be incomprehensive to an everyday businessperson. Second, there is the problem involved in coverage. Although over-all pension coverage may be consistent over the last decade and the assets of private plans have been on the increase, my concern is with those individuals of low to moderate income who are being left out of the private pension plan equation. As companies move toward cheaper plans-- 401(k)s being a salient example--and feel less obligated to offer defined benefit-type plans, individuals who do not have the extra money to contribute to their pension plans are unable to benefit from a plan's availability. This is if a plan is available at all, and in many cases it is not. Third, there is the problem of what kind of private pension plans are best suited for the so-called ``New Economy''. Clearly there is considerable debate as of late in terms of what kind of private pension plans should be offered so as to increase saving, decrease mobility, provide opportunity, enhance entrepreneurship, and so on, all of which is apparent in the rise of hybrid pension plans. My foremost concern here is that Congress now finds itself reacting to innovative private pension plans rather than being pro-active in their creation. Mr. President, in 1974, Congress passed the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, known by most people by its acronym of ERISA, our intention at the time being twofold. First, we wanted to protect the assets held in private sector retirement plans. Second, we wanted to create uniform rules that govern how these plans will be implemented in each and every state. From most accounts we have accomplished these two goals. There is no question that ERISA has flaws that must be addressed--and I will discuss these in detail later--but for all these flaws ERISA was extremely significant in that it reaffirmed the government's commitment to the importance of retirement plans for all Americans. Furthermore, it created a comprehensive framework in this country under which the expansion of private retirement plans could occur. Equally important, the mechanisms it established for personal saving has added trillions of dollars in available investment capital over the last decade alone, fueling in a very tangible way the unprecedented economic growth that we are seeing right now. But for all the praise ERISA receives, it is also criticized widely and, in my opinion, correctly on a number of counts. For this reason, it is time to seriously re-evaluate whether it is addressing the needs and concerns of all Americans. It is time to examine whether it fits the demands of a changing, global, ``new'' economy. As a specific example of these problems, the adoption of piecemeal, narrow, and complicated statutes and regulations in the 26 years since ERISA's implementation has made substantial portions of our retirement system inefficient, expensive, and oftentimes incomprehensible to anyone wishing to use it. It is well-known that we continue to add provisions and plans with no effort at all to make them internally compatible. We may have a broad vision about what we want to do with retirement policy in this country, but we instead of revising retirement policy in a comprehensive and strategic manner, we simply add new ideas and language incrementally, hoping they will appeal to businesses who wish to offer them to their employees. Sadly, the end result is that for many businesses the cost of compliance with ERISA regulations--the administrative and professional costs of qualification--rival and even outweigh the costs of providing the benefits themselves. This, in turn, has led to a decision by many business owners that they can no longer afford to offer retirement plans to their employees, this in spite of their desire to do so. For these people, the current rules burden the system beyond the benefits they provide. This has to change. But the cost and complexity I have just mentioned has had a corollary effect, that being a lack of access to pension plans on the part of low- and middle-income workers, women and minorities in particular. Rightly or wrongly, one of the foremost criticisms directed toward ERISA is that it has accelerated the demise of traditional defined benefit pensions and increased conversions to new forms of plans, specifically defined contribution plans like 401(k)s. Employers oftentimes no longer feel it is their role to provide retirement income to their employees as they once did under defined benefit plans. Instead they make defined contribution plans available and then educate employees as to how to save for themselves. The problem is that the retirement security of a great many workers now lies in their ability to contribute individually to these plans, and this is not always possible. Indeed, data suggests that if these individuals are able to save adequately at all, they do so late in their careers--this after paying for their homes, their childrens' education, and other important spending priorities. Only then do they have the opportunity to accumulate the money needed to supplement Social Security and carry them through retirement. But these are the lucky ones. The fact is a large portion of Americans simply no longer have the capacity to save, this in spite of living in a time of economic prosperity. This too needs to be changed. There is a third reason to re-evaluate ERISA, and that is that the dynamics of the New Economy demand a discussion of what retirement policies best serve the economic interests of the United States. For a good part of this century, private pension plans were seen by employers as a way to keep their workforce intact, their employees' morale high, and devotion to the company constant. Employees stayed with companies because they identified with the company and were treated by employers as family. Continuity and connection were the primary motivations for individuals as they considered a job. Recently, however, this rationale has changed, and has done so significantly. According to most analysts, the main determinant for most employees as they choose a job is personal development and professional growth, the feeling being that economic security is best attained by mobility--moving from one job to another, increasing education, pay, and retirement savings as you go. Staying at one firm is still an ideal for some but it is not essential for many. Perhaps more importantly, given the dynamics of the New Economy, it may no longer be practical to assume that you can find retirement security at a single firm. The bottom line, much as the recent debates over cash balance plans suggest, is that some very basic issues concerning pension policy are coming to the fore at this time, examples being the essence of the employer-employee relationship, the ability of companies to attract and maintain a skilled workforce, the benefits provided to short- and long- term employees, the advisability of worker mobility seen in the context of technological innovation and globalization, and so on. Here, we must confront the reality of political economic change, and do so quickly and coherently. But Congress is not doing that. As I stated previously, we are reacting to changes rather than planning for the future in a coherent and strategic manner. In my view, this is an extremely serious problem as it limits our ability to create the conditions necessary for national economic growth and individual economic welfare. As many of my colleagues know, the notion of a Pension Commission has been discussed and debated for a number of years, but we have never placed it high enough on our list of priorities to address it with purpose. I would argue that we can no longer afford the luxury of contemplation, and the time to act is now. Failure to adjust our existing policies to meet the challenges we face both now and in the future will result in several specific outcomes. First, it will mean that many workers will see their retirement expectations fade or disappear. Second, it will likely mean that these individuals will be forced to rely on government sponsored programs that are themselves financially overextended. Finally, it will mean that the capacity of U.S. firms to compete in the global marketplace will be diminished. In my view, none of these outcomes are acceptable. We simply must become more thoughtful and pro-active. The bill I introduce today has a number of purposes, but foremost among them is to establish an affordable, accessible, equitable, efficient, cost-effective, and easy to understand private pension plan system in the United States. It is designed to conduct a complete top- to-bottom evaluation of the current system and provide concrete recommendations as to how we can reform it to serve the interests of employers, employees, and the entire nation as a whole. This Commission will be composed of fifteen members, all with significant experience in areas related to retirement income policy. It is mandated that the activities of the Commission will be concluded in a little over two years, with specific language to be provided to Congress so that we can act on their recommendations immediately. To ensure that the activities of the Commission are not redundant or otherwise wasteful, it will be allowed to secure data from any government agency or department dealing with retirement policy, and furthermore, may request detailees from these agencies and departments on a non-reimburseable basis. The Commission will also be allowed to hold hearings, take testimony, and receive evidence as appropriate from individuals who are able to contribute to this reform effort. This bill has been created after detailed discussions with a number of individuals and organizations interested in retirement policy, from the Employee Benefits Research Institute, to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, to the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans. Although all of the organizations involved have their own perspective on how retirement policy issues should be addressed in the United States, I have made a concerted effort to make their concerns compatible in this legislation. Significantly, all endorse the goals of the bill, as does the American Academy of Actuaries, the Executive Committee of the New York State Bar Association, and the Chairman of the Special Commission on Pension Simplification of the New York State Bar Association, Mr. Alvin D. Lurie. Mr. President, although there is much to recommend concerning our current pension system, it is common knowledge that this system is, in many instances, too complicated for participants to understand, too difficult for businesses to use, and too inaccessible for individuals to join. We have added layer upon layer of legislation, to the point that the system is not only unwieldy, but often of questionable purpose. We have reached the point that its complexity and inaccessibility is having a tangible impact on individuals and businesses alike. In my view, the status quo is no longer viable or acceptable. It is time to meet the challenge that faces us in a direct and strategic fashion. It is time to reform and simplify the system so that we have a effective mechanism that serves employers and employees alike and provides the means to guarantee all Americans income security in their retirement years. Mr. President, the time to act is now. I ask my colleagues to recognize the importance of this legislation, and lend their support for its passage. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be included in the Record at the conclusion of my statement. I also ask that the letters of support from the American Academy of Actuaries and the Association of Private Pension and Welfare Plans be included in the Record immediately following my floor statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle, Byrd, Baucus, Bayh, Johnson, Levin, and Rockefeller, that offers a comprehensive approach to energy policy. This bill, the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act of 2000, incorporates many of the provisions of S. 1833, a comprehensive package of broad energy tax incentives introduced by Senator Daschle last year that I cosponsored along with a number of other Democratic Senators. We have updated and modified the bill after having worked closely with many stakeholders, from the auto manufacturers, to the oil and gas producers, to the energy efficiency community. The Energy Security Tax and Policy Act of 2000 addresses a broad range of technologies and industries necessary to meet our energy needs. The bill includes incentives to ensure we maintain production of our domestic resources, but the overarching emphasis is on stimulating more efficient use of energy in its many forms. Specific incentives address: Purchase of more efficient appliances, homes, and commercial buildings. Greater use of distributed generation--fuel cells, microturbines, combined heat and power systems and renewables. Purchase of hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles and development of the infrastructure to service those vehicles. Investment in clean coal technologies and generation of electricity from biomass, including co-firing with coal. Countercyclical tax incentives for production from domestic oil and gas marginal wells. Provisions to ensure diverse sources of electric supply are developed in the U.S. and to continue our investment in demand side management. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the President's emergency energy authorities, including establishing a northeastern heating oil reserve. We have tried to take a balanced approach, both supply side and demand side. Many of the provisions in this bill have strong bipartisan support, and I believe would receive the support of the White House as part of a comprehensive package. After my 17 years in the Senate and on the Energy Committee, I have to note that the same issues have been with us in varying degrees for years. Our current energy situation is the result of the policies and decisions of many Administrations, Congresses, companies and individuals, not to mention the vagaries of the marketplace. Finding solutions will take serious bipartisan effort and long term commitment. While we have the attention of the Congress, the White House and the public, I hope we can work together in the remaining days of this Congress to enact as many of these measures as possible to protect our energy security and our economy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today-- the Medicare+Choice Improvement Act of 2000--that would correct several of the inequities in the complex formula that is used to determine payment rates for Medicare+Choice plans. As many of my colleagues know, the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new optional Medicare+Choice managed care program for the aged and disabled beneficiaries of the Medicare program. This new program replaced the previous risk program and established a payment structure that was designed to reduce the variation across the country by increasing payments in areas with traditionally low payments. However, although payment variation has been somewhat reduced, substantial payment differentials remain nationwide. In New Mexico, for example, the Medicare+Choice plan payment for 2000 in Albuquerque is $430.44 monthly per beneficiary vs. $814.32 for NYC. Because these payments are so low in some places it has caused a devastating result--seniors are being dropped in large numbers. The bill I am introducing today will correct inequities in the current formula that is used to develop payment rates for Medicare+Choice managed care plans and keep them as a viable alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare+Choice plans are a popular alternative to traditional Medicare fee-for-service health care coverage for aged and disabled Americans because they help contain the beneficiary's out-of-pocket expenses, coordinate health care, and increase important benefits. Mr. President, the sad reality is that Medicare+Choice plans are suffering financially under the new payment system and are no longer able to maintain enrollment of Medicare+Choice beneficiaries. As you can see from this chart, New Mexico Medicare+Choice plans have announced plans to drop 15,700 beneficiaries from their rolls on January 1, 2001. And, as you can see from this chart, nationally, the number of Medi- care+Choice plan beneficiaries that will be dropped on January 1, 2001 are expected to be 711,000. Since 1999, 735,000 beneficiaries have been dropped. This would mean that as of January 1, 2001, 1,445,000 beneficiaries will have been dropped. This is a terrible situation. Even though beneficiaries that are dropped from Medicare+Choice plans will revert to traditional Medicare and will be able to purchase Medicare supplemental health insurance plans, the high cost associated with the purchase of these plans will put an additional financial burden on these aged and disabled Americans living on fixed incomes. Additionally, they will not have the additional health care benefits available to them under Medicare+Choice plans, including routine physicals, vision care, and prescription drugs. Because Medicare+Choice plans are offered by private managed care companies and because of their unique structure, these plans were able to limit out of pocket expenses, provide additional benefits to beneficiaries, and control health care costs to the Federal government. As you can see from this chart, Medicare+Choice plans offer a host of important benefits and options over and above traditional Medicare. These include: prescription drugs, lower cost sharing with a catastrophic cap on expenditures, care coordination, routine physicals, health education, vision services and, hearing exams/aids. Mr. President, the loss of this important health care coverage option for the aged and disabled will be devastating for some. This situation will probably cause many of those on marginal incomes to lose the ability to afford normal living expenses that may effectively require them to enroll in Medicaid and state financial assistance programs. If a beneficiary, who was dropped from a Medicare+Choice plan, has a fall and is admitted into the hospital they will be responsible for all deductible expenses and when they are discharged and sent home with a doctor's order for physical therapy, occupational therapy and visiting nurse service they would be responsible for all Medicare deductibles. This event could cost the beneficiary several thousand dollars. This acute episode could force a beneficiary living on a marginal income to be unable to pay for their deductibles, cease treatment prematurely, or even worse, avoid return visits to the doctor until they are in another emergency situation. Additionally, they would be forced to enroll on a state Medicaid program for the indigent. Sadly, Mr. President, the formula that was developed for Medicare+Choice plans was intended to address geographic variation in the payment rates has gone too far in controlling costs and missed the boat with respect to geographic variability. Sure, the goal of managed care is to save money for the taxpayer and coordinate quality care for the beneficiary, but there is a point at which a health plan cannot afford financially to operate. This forces the beneficiary onto traditional Medicare with its higher costs for both the taxpayer and beneficiary. Mr. President, this point has been reached in New Mexico and other areas of the country. We may not be able to have Medicare+Choice plans take back their dropped beneficiaries but, we can prevent more from being dropped by acting favorably on this bill. The bottom line is this: As a nation, we need to do all we can to provide a viable option to traditional fee-for-service Medicare that provides coordinated managed care at a savings to both the beneficiary and the Federal Government. The bill that I am introducing has provisions to raise the minimum payment floor, move to a 50:50 blend rate between local and national rates in 2002, set a ten-year phase-in of risk adjustment and allow plans to negotiate a rate of payment with HCFA regardless of the county-specific rate, as long as the negotiated rate does not exceed the national average per- capita cost, and delay from July to November 2000 the deadline for offering and withdrawing Medicare+Choice plans for 2001. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to join me in taking an important step toward maintaining Medicare+Choice managed care plans as a positive alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and prevent more enrollees from being dropped while we try to reform Medicare. We owe it to our nation to take care of our elderly and aged citizens and not expose them to more hardship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill, on behalf of myself and Senators Daschle, Byrd, Baucus, Bayh, Johnson, Levin, and Rockefeller, that offers a comprehensive approach to energy policy. This bill, the Energy Security Tax and Policy Act of 2000, incorporates many of the provisions of S. 1833, a comprehensive package of broad energy tax incentives introduced by Senator Daschle last year that I cosponsored along with a number of other Democratic Senators. We have updated and modified the bill after having worked closely with many stakeholders, from the auto manufacturers, to the oil and gas producers, to the energy efficiency community. The Energy Security Tax and Policy Act of 2000 addresses a broad range of technologies and industries necessary to meet our energy needs. The bill includes incentives to ensure we maintain production of our domestic resources, but the overarching emphasis is on stimulating more efficient use of energy in its many forms. Specific incentives address: Purchase of more efficient appliances, homes, and commercial buildings. Greater use of distributed generation--fuel cells, microturbines, combined heat and power systems and renewables. Purchase of hybrid and alternative fueled vehicles and development of the infrastructure to service those vehicles. Investment in clean coal technologies and generation of electricity from biomass, including co-firing with coal. Countercyclical tax incentives for production from domestic oil and gas marginal wells. Provisions to ensure diverse sources of electric supply are developed in the U.S. and to continue our investment in demand side management. In addition, the bill reauthorizes the President's emergency energy authorities, including establishing a northeastern heating oil reserve. We have tried to take a balanced approach, both supply side and demand side. Many of the provisions in this bill have strong bipartisan support, and I believe would receive the support of the White House as part of a comprehensive package. After my 17 years in the Senate and on the Energy Committee, I have to note that the same issues have been with us in varying degrees for years. Our current energy situation is the result of the policies and decisions of many Administrations, Congresses, companies and individuals, not to mention the vagaries of the marketplace. Finding solutions will take serious bipartisan effort and long term commitment. While we have the attention of the Congress, the White House and the public, I hope we can work together in the remaining days of this Congress to enact as many of these measures as possible to protect our energy security and our economy.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2905 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce a bill today-- the Medicare+Choice Improvement Act of 2000--that would correct several of the inequities in the complex formula that is used to determine payment rates for Medicare+Choice plans. As many of my colleagues know, the passage of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 created a new optional Medicare+Choice managed care program for the aged and disabled beneficiaries of the Medicare program. This new program replaced the previous risk program and established a payment structure that was designed to reduce the variation across the country by increasing payments in areas with traditionally low payments. However, although payment variation has been somewhat reduced, substantial payment differentials remain nationwide. In New Mexico, for example, the Medicare+Choice plan payment for 2000 in Albuquerque is $430.44 monthly per beneficiary vs. $814.32 for NYC. Because these payments are so low in some places it has caused a devastating result--seniors are being dropped in large numbers. The bill I am introducing today will correct inequities in the current formula that is used to develop payment rates for Medicare+Choice managed care plans and keep them as a viable alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare. Medicare+Choice plans are a popular alternative to traditional Medicare fee-for-service health care coverage for aged and disabled Americans because they help contain the beneficiary's out-of-pocket expenses, coordinate health care, and increase important benefits. Mr. President, the sad reality is that Medicare+Choice plans are suffering financially under the new payment system and are no longer able to maintain enrollment of Medicare+Choice beneficiaries. As you can see from this chart, New Mexico Medicare+Choice plans have announced plans to drop 15,700 beneficiaries from their rolls on January 1, 2001. And, as you can see from this chart, nationally, the number of Medi- care+Choice plan beneficiaries that will be dropped on January 1, 2001 are expected to be 711,000. Since 1999, 735,000 beneficiaries have been dropped. This would mean that as of January 1, 2001, 1,445,000 beneficiaries will have been dropped. This is a terrible situation. Even though beneficiaries that are dropped from Medicare+Choice plans will revert to traditional Medicare and will be able to purchase Medicare supplemental health insurance plans, the high cost associated with the purchase of these plans will put an additional financial burden on these aged and disabled Americans living on fixed incomes. Additionally, they will not have the additional health care benefits available to them under Medicare+Choice plans, including routine physicals, vision care, and prescription drugs. Because Medicare+Choice plans are offered by private managed care companies and because of their unique structure, these plans were able to limit out of pocket expenses, provide additional benefits to beneficiaries, and control health care costs to the Federal government. As you can see from this chart, Medicare+Choice plans offer a host of important benefits and options over and above traditional Medicare. These include: prescription drugs, lower cost sharing with a catastrophic cap on expenditures, care coordination, routine physicals, health education, vision services and, hearing exams/aids. Mr. President, the loss of this important health care coverage option for the aged and disabled will be devastating for some. This situation will probably cause many of those on marginal incomes to lose the ability to afford normal living expenses that may effectively require them to enroll in Medicaid and state financial assistance programs. If a beneficiary, who was dropped from a Medicare+Choice plan, has a fall and is admitted into the hospital they will be responsible for all deductible expenses and when they are discharged and sent home with a doctor's order for physical therapy, occupational therapy and visiting nurse service they would be responsible for all Medicare deductibles. This event could cost the beneficiary several thousand dollars. This acute episode could force a beneficiary living on a marginal income to be unable to pay for their deductibles, cease treatment prematurely, or even worse, avoid return visits to the doctor until they are in another emergency situation. Additionally, they would be forced to enroll on a state Medicaid program for the indigent. Sadly, Mr. President, the formula that was developed for Medicare+Choice plans was intended to address geographic variation in the payment rates has gone too far in controlling costs and missed the boat with respect to geographic variability. Sure, the goal of managed care is to save money for the taxpayer and coordinate quality care for the beneficiary, but there is a point at which a health plan cannot afford financially to operate. This forces the beneficiary onto traditional Medicare with its higher costs for both the taxpayer and beneficiary. Mr. President, this point has been reached in New Mexico and other areas of the country. We may not be able to have Medicare+Choice plans take back their dropped beneficiaries but, we can prevent more from being dropped by acting favorably on this bill. The bottom line is this: As a nation, we need to do all we can to provide a viable option to traditional fee-for-service Medicare that provides coordinated managed care at a savings to both the beneficiary and the Federal Government. The bill that I am introducing has provisions to raise the minimum payment floor, move to a 50:50 blend rate between local and national rates in 2002, set a ten-year phase-in of risk adjustment and allow plans to negotiate a rate of payment with HCFA regardless of the county-specific rate, as long as the negotiated rate does not exceed the national average per- capita cost, and delay from July to November 2000 the deadline for offering and withdrawing Medicare+Choice plans for 2001. I urge my colleagues to support this effort and to join me in taking an important step toward maintaining Medicare+Choice managed care plans as a positive alternative to traditional fee-for-service Medicare, and prevent more enrollees from being dropped while we try to reform Medicare. We owe it to our nation to take care of our elderly and aged citizens and not expose them to more hardship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. The $15 million in water and wastewater grants in this amendment include a special provision that allows the department to provide up to 100 percent of the cost of a project for the most economically disadvantaged tribes that can't otherwise qualify for a loan as normally required. A similar grant program was first established by Congress last year to address the urgent needs in Indian Country for basic water and waste water systems. I am pleased that the Rural Utilities Service has moved quickly this year to implement this new program and we are seeing immediate results. To date, 26 grants have been awarded to tribes in 14 states--from Maine to California. The average grant is a little more than $400,000. The RUS already has in hand requests for many millions of dollars in important projects for next year. This amendment will provide the funding to address these urgent needs. In addition, the amendment provides $5 million in much needed funding for facilities construction and maintenance at our 33 tribal colleges that comprise the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, AIHEC. Many of these institutions are operating in donated, abandoned, and in some cases, even condemned structures. Hazards include leaking roofs, asbestos insulation, exposed and substandard wiring, and crumbling foundations. Tribal colleges receive little or no funding from the states. These institutions are located on federal trust land and are a federal responsibility. The $5 million provided in this amendment will begin to address the backlog in facility requirements for tribal colleges. The development of new businesses in Indian Country is one key to self sufficiency for Native American communities. The amendment provides $3 million in rural business enterprise grants to support the development of small and emerging tribal business enterprises. These funds can be used to develop land, construct buildings and factories, purchase equipment, provide road access and parking areas, extend basic utilities, or provide technical assistance, startup and operating costs, or working capital for new business. Finally, the amendment provides a $1 million set aside for tribal rural business opportunity grants. Tribes may use these funds to analyze business opportunities that will make use of the existing economic and human resources in Indian Country. Funding can also be used to train tribal entrepreneurs and to establish business support centers. Unemployment rates in Indian Country are the highest in the nation, sometimes topping 50 percent. Development of new business opportunities on tribal lands is one of the keys to improving the standard of living in Native American communities. Congress established the rural development programs to assist in the economic development of rural areas of the nation with the highest percentage of low-income residents. Today, some of the most economically disadvantaged communities in America are in Indian Country. The $24 million set aside in this bill for tribal programs represents only a tiny percentage of the total funding available for Rural Community Advancement Programs. This funding will begin to address the needs of some of America's poorest communities. Again, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their support for the tribal funding in this bill. These are important programs to help deal with the critical needs of our tribes. I hope the Senate will support our amendment. Exhibit 1 National Congress of American Indians, Washington, DC, May 24, 2000. Re Support for Bingaman Tribal Amendment Dear Senator:The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the oldest and most representatives Indian advocacy organization, respectfully request your support for an amendment to be offered by Senator Jeff Bingaman to S. 2536, the FY2001 Agriculture Appropriations bill during full Senate consideration. This amendment would designate the $24 million currently proposed for water and wastewater loans and grants in the Indian Rural Utilities Service (RUS) programs into four grant programs: 1) Rural Business Opportunity Grants; 2) Community Facilities Grants for Tribal College Improvements; 3) Drinking Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Economically Disadvantaged Tribes; and 4) Rural Business Enterprise Grants. NCAI supports this amendment because it designates the funds for grant programs that are targeted to the specific rural development needs of tribes and tribal colleges, rather than for the general purpose of benefiting federally recognized Native American tribes. In FY2000, Senator Bingaman was instrumental in securing the original set aside of $12 million for the Indian RUS program. To date, 19 Indian projects have been funded, with five requests on hand, and an additional four that are or forthcoming. NCAI respectfully request your support of the Bingaman Tribal amendment when it is offered for full Senate consideration. If you have any questions in regards to this amendment, please contact me or Victoria Wright, NCAI Legislative Associate at (202) 466-7767. Sincerely, JoAnn K. Chase, Executive Director.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak for a few minutes about my amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill now before the Senate. The amendment identifies vital funding for Indian Country in four programs under the Rural Community Advancement Program. The cosponsors of the amendment are Senators Campbell, Inouye, Domenici, Leahy, Daschle, Dorgan, Feinstein, Bennett, Murray, Johnson, Hatch, Snowe, and Conrad. First, I want to thank Chairman Cochran and Senator Kohl for their work on this Agriculture Appropriations Bill. This bill provides funding for a number of programs that are vital to my state of New Mexico and to the nation. The rural development programs funded in this bill are especially important for a rural state like New Mexico. Through a variety of grant and loan programs, rural development is helping to make sure that our smaller communities are not being left behind in basic infrastructure, in quality of housing, in economical utilities, in community facilities, or in business development. Rural development is making tremendous progress in improving the quality of life of our smaller communities and in Indian Country. The basic health and well being of rural people in New Mexico, as well as their economic future, are much brighter as a result of the rural development programs. This amendment is straight forward. The bill already provides $24 million for tribal programs, and I thank the Chairman and Ranking Member for providing this important set aside. The amendment simply sets the priorities for how the existing tribal funding in the bill should be divided among the various Rural Development Programs. Under our amendment, $1 million is set aside for rural business opportunity grants, $5 million for community facilities for tribal colleges, $15 million for grants for drinking water and waste disposal systems, and $3 million for rural business enterprise grants. These priorities have the support of the National Congress of American Indians and the American Indian Higher Education Consortium. I ask unanimous consent that letters from the NCAI and AIHEC supporting our amendment be included in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I, too, thank the Chairman for his assurance.