Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I appreciate the concerns of my colleague from Florida. As you know, I continue to push for a renewable portfolio standard because the increased use of renewables can ease natural gas price volatility and decrease our dependence on fossil fuels and foreign imports. Having said that, differences do exist from region to region and State to State with regard to renewable energy potential. I would like to extend an offer to Senator Nelson of Florida to work in conference to find a method that will enable a renewable standard to accomplish the goal of increasing renewables while recognizing the legitimate differences among States. I acknowledge that municipal solid waste plays a large role in Florida's renewable potential and I would be willing to recognize that potential as part of our discussions in the conference. I believe we can find a way to help each State include a renewable standard as part of their overall energy production, and I am committed to working with Senator Nelson to accomplish this.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Too many of our young people leave high school without the skills necessary to meet the demands of a global economy. According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of job applicants having poor skills. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages. The strength of our economy, and the future of our nation, largely rests on our ability to improve educational opportunities for all of our citizens. An educated, skilled, and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy, and, if we are going to maintain our country's ability to compete in a global economy, we must help prepare young people to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. I introduce legislation that will ensure more students graduate high school ready for college and the workforce. Only 68 percent of all students in the U.S. graduate high school on time with a regular diploma. And, the numbers are worse if the student is Hispanic, African American, Native American, has a disability, or is male. Sadly, a recent report indicates that students are dropping out at a younger age, resulting in an even less educated workforce. For students who graduate with a high school diploma, too few go on directly to college. Astonishingly, only 38 percent of high school freshmen will earn a high school diploma and make the immediate transition to college directly after graduation. In New Mexico, the statistics are pretty staggering. For every 50 ninth graders in New Mexico, only 30 will graduate high school; 18 will enter college; 11 are still enrolled in their sophomore year; and 5.5 graduate from college within 6 years. We must do better. We also know, unfortunately, that as many as 40 percent of this country's high school graduates are not prepared to meet the demands of college or a competitive workforce. A survey of college professors reveals that half of all public school graduates are not adequately prepared to do college-level math or writing. There is some good news, however; we know what works. Research conducted by the Department of Education shows that the single best predictor of college success is the quality and level of a student's high school classes. Students who take a solid college prep curriculum are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more likely to earn a college degree. In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality of high school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a bachelor's degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do college-bound students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all students benefit from more rigorous coursework. Accordingly, it is critical that all of our young people have access to rigorous coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands of postsecondary education and a competitive workforce. Therefore, I introduce legislation that builds on this research and works toward a goal of ensuring that all secondary school students are enrolled in classes that prepare them to excel in college and in the workplace. The GEAR UP program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was first authorized in 1998 and was designed to promote student achievement and access to postsecondary education among low-income students. Since that time, GEAR UP grants have served over a million students per year. In my home State of New Mexico, there are six GEAR UP programs that serve thousands of students in many different ways, including by instituting reading and math programs, taking students to colleges so they can begin to imagine themselves on a college campus, creating science fairs and technology training seminars, providing career and financial counseling, and many other vital services. And, the individuals who work with GEAR UP programs are some of the most dedicated professionals I have met. I believe we can build on the successes of GEAR UP to ensure more students leave high school prepared for the academic rigor of college and a competitive workforce. My legislation, called Gearing Up for Academic Success, will support and strengthen GEAR UP so that it promotes lasting and systemic change in the schools served by the GEAR UP grant. The legislation places a particular focus on encouraging more students to take college preparation courses, especially those who are at risk for dropping out of school. But, it also builds capacity within the school so that activities funded with a GEAR UP grant benefit not only the students who receive the services, but also future cohorts of students who enter GEAR UP schools after the initial grants have ended. My legislation does not change the fundamental structure of GEAR UP; it maintains States and partnerships as eligible entities. The legislation, however, changes the focus and the types of activities the eligible entities must engage in. Eligible entities will now be required to provide activities that ensure more students participate in college preparation coursework. Further, my legislation requires the activities to be designed so as to benefit both current students as well as future cohorts of students. As in current law, partnerships are comprised of school districts, institutions of higher education, and community organizations. The legislation also retains the focus on cohorts of students that exists in current law by requiring grantees to serve one grade level of students, beginning not later than the 7th grade, through the 12th grade. Unlike current law, however, partnerships will now be required to provide activities designed to ensure the secondary school completion and college enrollment of this cohort of students. The legislation will also require the partnership to focus on developing a more rigorous curriculum and on professional development opportunities for teachers of college prep courses. Consequently, future cohorts of students would benefit from the more rigorous curriculum and the professional development available to the teachers. Partnerships may also engage in a wide variety of other activities permissible under current law, including providing mentoring and advising, creating summer programs at institutions of higher education, providing skills assessment, personal and family counseling, financial aid counseling, and activities designed to foster parent involvement in issues surrounding completion of high school and the attainment of a college education. The State can play a more effective role in ensuring students graduate high school prepared for college, and accordingly, my legislation requires State grantees to focus on two types of activities. First, the State would be required to provide policy leadership to promote college readiness of students in the State, particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of school and those who are economically disadvantaged. And, second, the State will be responsible for promoting coordination and information sharing among all GEAR UP grantees in the state, providing technical assistance and training, disseminating information about best practices, and providing opportunities for eligible partnerships to coordinate their efforts. This program is so worthwhile, and leadership at the State level is absolutely critical, and accordingly, propose changing the formula to make funds available to every State. When appropriations for GEAR UP exceed $400,000,000 per year, one third of the funds will be made available to each State by formula. The remainder of the allocation will go to eligible partnerships on a competitive basis. We all can agree that it is in our national interest to ensure that all of our students leave high school prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. This legislation provides an opportunity to systemically change the way our secondary schools prepare all students for college and a competitive workforce. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, our country is facing a crisis. Too many of our young people leave high school without the skills necessary to meet the demands of a global economy. According to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, 75 percent of employers report severe difficulties when trying to hire qualified workers, with 40 percent of job applicants having poor skills. As many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages. The strength of our economy, and the future of our nation, largely rests on our ability to improve educational opportunities for all of our citizens. An educated, skilled, and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy, and, if we are going to maintain our country's ability to compete in a global economy, we must help prepare young people to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. I introduce legislation that will ensure more students graduate high school ready for college and the workforce. Only 68 percent of all students in the U.S. graduate high school on time with a regular diploma. And, the numbers are worse if the student is Hispanic, African American, Native American, has a disability, or is male. Sadly, a recent report indicates that students are dropping out at a younger age, resulting in an even less educated workforce. For students who graduate with a high school diploma, too few go on directly to college. Astonishingly, only 38 percent of high school freshmen will earn a high school diploma and make the immediate transition to college directly after graduation. In New Mexico, the statistics are pretty staggering. For every 50 ninth graders in New Mexico, only 30 will graduate high school; 18 will enter college; 11 are still enrolled in their sophomore year; and 5.5 graduate from college within 6 years. We must do better. We also know, unfortunately, that as many as 40 percent of this country's high school graduates are not prepared to meet the demands of college or a competitive workforce. A survey of college professors reveals that half of all public school graduates are not adequately prepared to do college-level math or writing. There is some good news, however; we know what works. Research conducted by the Department of Education shows that the single best predictor of college success is the quality and level of a student's high school classes. Students who take a solid college prep curriculum are less likely to need remedial classes, and are more likely to earn a college degree. In fact, evidence shows that the intensity and quality of high school curriculum is the greatest measure of completion of a bachelor's degree. Importantly, studies also show that not only do college-bound students benefit from rigorous courses, but that all students benefit from more rigorous coursework. Accordingly, it is critical that all of our young people have access to rigorous coursework in secondary school in order to meet the demands of postsecondary education and a competitive workforce. Therefore, I introduce legislation that builds on this research and works toward a goal of ensuring that all secondary school students are enrolled in classes that prepare them to excel in college and in the workplace. The GEAR UP program, Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs, was first authorized in 1998 and was designed to promote student achievement and access to postsecondary education among low-income students. Since that time, GEAR UP grants have served over a million students per year. In my home State of New Mexico, there are six GEAR UP programs that serve thousands of students in many different ways, including by instituting reading and math programs, taking students to colleges so they can begin to imagine themselves on a college campus, creating science fairs and technology training seminars, providing career and financial counseling, and many other vital services. And, the individuals who work with GEAR UP programs are some of the most dedicated professionals I have met. I believe we can build on the successes of GEAR UP to ensure more students leave high school prepared for the academic rigor of college and a competitive workforce. My legislation, called Gearing Up for Academic Success, will support and strengthen GEAR UP so that it promotes lasting and systemic change in the schools served by the GEAR UP grant. The legislation places a particular focus on encouraging more students to take college preparation courses, especially those who are at risk for dropping out of school. But, it also builds capacity within the school so that activities funded with a GEAR UP grant benefit not only the students who receive the services, but also future cohorts of students who enter GEAR UP schools after the initial grants have ended. My legislation does not change the fundamental structure of GEAR UP; it maintains States and partnerships as eligible entities. The legislation, however, changes the focus and the types of activities the eligible entities must engage in. Eligible entities will now be required to provide activities that ensure more students participate in college preparation coursework. Further, my legislation requires the activities to be designed so as to benefit both current students as well as future cohorts of students. As in current law, partnerships are comprised of school districts, institutions of higher education, and community organizations. The legislation also retains the focus on cohorts of students that exists in current law by requiring grantees to serve one grade level of students, beginning not later than the 7th grade, through the 12th grade. Unlike current law, however, partnerships will now be required to provide activities designed to ensure the secondary school completion and college enrollment of this cohort of students. The legislation will also require the partnership to focus on developing a more rigorous curriculum and on professional development opportunities for teachers of college prep courses. Consequently, future cohorts of students would benefit from the more rigorous curriculum and the professional development available to the teachers. Partnerships may also engage in a wide variety of other activities permissible under current law, including providing mentoring and advising, creating summer programs at institutions of higher education, providing skills assessment, personal and family counseling, financial aid counseling, and activities designed to foster parent involvement in issues surrounding completion of high school and the attainment of a college education. The State can play a more effective role in ensuring students graduate high school prepared for college, and accordingly, my legislation requires State grantees to focus on two types of activities. First, the State would be required to provide policy leadership to promote college readiness of students in the State, particularly those who are at risk of dropping out of school and those who are economically disadvantaged. And, second, the State will be responsible for promoting coordination and information sharing among all GEAR UP grantees in the state, providing technical assistance and training, disseminating information about best practices, and providing opportunities for eligible partnerships to coordinate their efforts. This program is so worthwhile, and leadership at the State level is absolutely critical, and accordingly, propose changing the formula to make funds available to every State. When appropriations for GEAR UP exceed $400,000,000 per year, one third of the funds will be made available to each State by formula. The remainder of the allocation will go to eligible partnerships on a competitive basis. We all can agree that it is in our national interest to ensure that all of our students leave high school prepared to meet the demands of the 21st century workforce. This legislation provides an opportunity to systemically change the way our secondary schools prepare all students for college and a competitive workforce. I ask unanimous consent the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent request that Lauren Mical, a fellow with Senator Jeffords's Environment and Public Works Committee staff, Margaret McCarthy, Katie Gallagher and Matthew Kireker, three interns on Senator Jeffords's staff, be granted the privilege of the floor during consideration of H.R. 6.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the New Mexico Junior College baseball team from Hobbs, NM on winning the 2005 National Junior College World Series. This is a tournament that involves baseball teams from junior colleges across the United States. The Thunderbirds swept to the national title with a perfect record of 5-0 in tournament play. Their hard work and dedication is a perfect example of what is takes to win a national championship. This is the first national championship in New Mexico Junior College history. I would also like to recognize Coach Ray Birmingham for winning the Coach of the Year award, his seventh in 15 years. The loyalty that Coach Birmingham engenders in his players is both heart-warming and inspiring. Several of Coach Birmingham's players won awards as well. Among the outstanding honors were Renny Osuna, who was chosen for the Preston Walker MVP Award; Brian Flores, who was selected as Outstanding Pitcher; and Corey Zimmerman, who was named as Best Defensive Player. Mr. President, fans lined the streets in Lovington and Tatum as the bus carrying the team passed through. A large group of proud supporters met the team when the bus rolled onto the campus in Hobbs on Monday. It was that kind of community support, along with the determination, skill and work ethic of the team, that swept the Thunderbirds to victory. I congratulate New Mexico Junior College on its great accomplishment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I should not take more than 15 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first congratulate our chairman, Senator Domenici, on successfully bringing this bill through the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and to the Senate floor. As he indicated, the vote to report the bill from committee was 21 to 1-- nearly unanimous. That vote is a testament, not only to what is contained in the bill but also to the process he followed when moving the bill to the Senate floor. It has been over 4 years since President Bush released his energy policy plan. I believe President Bush was right to want to fashion a comprehensive energy policy for the Nation. President Clinton had such a policy document put together by a task force under Secretary of Energy Federico Pena. The first President Bush also had a national energy strategy document that was put together by then-Secretary of Energy James Watkins, after numerous public hearings around the country. The fact that three successive Presidents have seen the need for comprehensive energy policy illustrates an important fact; that is, a good energy policy does not happen automatically. Energy markets are not inherently free markets and the short-term thinking that drives much corporate behavior in America is often mismatched to the long-term energy needs of the country. As one example, if you look at the utility sector, you can see that our generation mix in recent years has strongly skewed toward new plants based on natural gas. But we now find that our long-term supply picture for natural gas cannot accommodate this additional demand without significant increases in price for all gas consumers. Energy policy is something that requires intentional forethought and planning. I remember former Chairman Bob Galvin of Motorola saying at one point that there are certain things a country needs to set out to do on purpose. I believe, along with my colleagues on the Democratic side, a good, comprehensive energy policy is one of those things. I believe what we should try to do on purpose can be summarized under four basic principles. The first principle is that we need to increase our supplies of energy from all available sources. Every potential source of energy will be required in order to meet our energy needs in the future. We need to make sure that resources that have not yet been as extensively developed as they might otherwise be, such as renewable energy, get the policy assist they need to make their maximum contribution. The second principle is we need to ensure that the energy we do produce is transported as effectively as possible and is consumed as efficiently as possible. Our national energy system depends on a critical infrastructure of ports and pipelines and transmission wires and other modes of moving energy from one place to another. Building and maintaining that infrastructure is difficult and it is expensive. We need to make sure we have policies so consumers are not hurt by price spikes and other problems caused by bottlenecks in the energy system. Once energy reaches its point of end use, it is important that it not be wasted. Improving the efficiency of energy use in appliances, in commercial equipment, in industrial processes, and in transportation will lead to two important goals: lowering the price for all energy users and less strain on our energy infrastructure. The third principle of a good, comprehensive energy policy is that we need to make sure it meshes well with other important national policies. It is especially important the energy policy have good synergy with environmental policy. Nowhere is this more clear, in my view, than in the case of global warming. Mr. President, 98 percent of the carbon dioxide produced in the United States is associated somehow with energy production and use. We cannot afford an energy policy that does not take into account environmental and climate impact, just as we cannot afford to have a climate policy that ignores energy impacts. Finally, because we rely heavily on market forces and signals to shape our energy choices, we need to be sure that we have energy markets that are transparent and that are fair to consumers. I believe when we have competitive energy markets that work fairly, everyone in the energy chain, from the producer to the consumer, benefits. As the California electricity crisis a few years ago showed--and not just the California crisis but the crisis that afflicted most of the west coast--when energy markets are not structured properly, when those markets allow for hidden and manipulative practices, great economic damage can be done. These four principles are the foundation I hope we have before us in this energy bill that is coming to the Senate for consideration. I believe the Senate will ultimately be judged in the area of energy policy, first by whether our bill makes a concrete difference in bringing new energy resources and technologies into the mix; second, by whether we make sure that we use advanced technology to save as much energy as possible; third, by our ability to protect the environment and respond to challenges such as global warming; and, finally, by our ability to shape energy markets for the future that protect and empower consumers. At the beginning of the markup of the bill in the Energy Committee, I expressed my appreciation to my colleague, Senator Domenici, for the way he and his staff had worked with Democratic Members and staff in preparing for the markup. I told him that he deserved great credit for a good start, and I looked forward to working with him to see if we could have a similarly good finish in the committee. We had a very good finish in the committee. We are now having a good start on the Senate floor. This bill is a good starting point, but there are several important issues with which we need to deal in the full Senate that we were not able to address in committee. Three of these issues deal with providing more certainty to all those associated with our energy system so that they can make rational investments in the energy technologies of the future. First, we need to provide renewable energy with a more certain place in our future. Renewable energy provides nowhere near the contribution to our energy mix today that it could or that it should. In the last Congress, we expanded the scope of production tax credits for renewable energy, but these tax credits expire after only a very short time. Thus, they do not provide the needed long-term market signals. I believe we need to supplement these tax credits with a long-term national renewable electricity standard. By having a clear, certain requirement that 10 percent of all electricity generation comes from renewables in the year 2020, we would give industry the certainty it needs to successfully undertake new projects to improve the diversity of our electricity generation mix and to relieve some of the pressure that is leading to high natural gas prices. Second, we need to deal responsibly with global warming. The electric industry and many other sectors of our economy are gripped with uncertainty about the future of carbon-based energy and products in a world that is increasingly concerned about global warming. There is a need for certainty about the regulatory framework that would be in effect regarding future investments to ameliorate the threat of global warming. Under our current voluntary approach to the problem we will likely never see these new investments, not because they are not needed but because the economic picture is so clouded. Third, we need more clarity on how we plan to deal with our dependence on foreign oil. We need to see if we can spur additional petroleum production in a way that is environmentally responsible, and we need to see if we can find ways to use less oil in the American economy. If we can trim the growth in our national demand for oil, we will relieve both our dependence on imports and the pressure on our national infrastructure of oil terminals and pipelines and refineries, all of which are operating near their capacity today. An energy bill is a place for clear purposes. I hope that when the full Senate has completed its consideration of this measure, it will have expressed a willingness to take clear and forceful new action to ensure that our energy future is clean and abundant and affordable. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I join the chairman in his reluctance to prejudge amendments that we have not yet seen here in the Senate. We are trying very hard on this bill to consider and work out issues on their merits, which is how I think energy legislation should be considered in the Senate. I can assure my colleagues, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, that in order to move forward expeditiously with this legislation, I will likewise not support an amendment that alters current OCS moratoria with respect to submerged lands off of Florida's coast or that affects lands in Lease Sale 181, and that I will work very closely with them on any amendment that they believe affects Florida's interests with respect to the Outer Continental Shelf. Senator Nelson has been a strong leader and advocate for preventing oil and gas development off of Florida's coasts. He is a passionate defender of the pristine beaches, estuaries, and native mangrove ecosystems of Florida. I am keenly aware that he and his colleague, Senator Martinez, have considerable rights under the Senate rules to impede the progress of this bill if amendments threatening these important Florida resources were in fact offered. But, I think it is unlikely that any Senator will offer an amendment to lift OCS moratoria off of Florida, or open areas otherwise unavailable for leasing, during our consideration of this bill. I have somewhat different policy views than those of Chairman Domenici with respect to the role of States and the OCS. I certainly agree with his desire to see additional environmentally responsible energy development on the Outer Continental Shelf. Any policy differences regarding how that is to be accomplished are probably best left to another occasion. I also have a very different policy view on Lease Sale 181 from the Senators from Florida. I have supported drilling in the Lease Sale 181 area in the past and am likely to do so in the future. I do believe that oil and gas production on the OCS can and will play an important role in meeting our Nation's energy needs, and that we need to craft appropriate national policies in that regard. For that reason, like the chairman, I support the inventory proposal contained in the bill now, and would support attempts to improve it. But I do not think that such provisions necessarily would operate to the detriment of Floridians. I appreciate the diligence being shown by our colleagues on these topics, given the importance that Floridians place on maintaining a pristine coastal environment. I look forward to continuing to work with them on these issues as this bill progresses.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sreela Nandi, Tara Billingsley, and Dominic Saavedra, all of whom are fellows or interns with the Democratic staff and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, and Jonathan Epstein, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges during the consideration of this bill, H.R. 6.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take a minute, also, and underscore the comments our colleague from Nebraska and Senator Domenici have made about Jim Exon. He was a great U.S. Senator and one with whom I was fortunate to serve on the Armed Services Committee for many years. He contributed a tremendous amount to his home State and to this country. He will be missed by all who served with him in the Senate. There is a service for him tomorrow in Nebraska, which I hope to attend. I will also have extensive comments to offer at a future time. It is a great loss to the country and a great loss, of course, to all those who knew him. He will be fondly remembered in this Senate. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005'' with Senators DeWine, Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses. When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care. In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional 5 months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins. What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted 2 important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.'' Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. Of the 1.2 million people stuck in the 2-year waiting period at any given time, it is estimated that one-third, or 400,000, are left completely uninsured. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire. In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first 2 years of enrollment while waiting to be covered by Medicare. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled ``Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs,'' 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. In other words, it is estimated that of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. Let me repeat . . . 16,000 of the 400,000 uninsured disabled in the waiting period at any given moment will die while waiting for Medicare coverage to begin. Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group. According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the Federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52 percent), hypertension (46 percent), mental disorder (36 percent), heart condition (35 percent), chronic lung disease (26 percent), cancer (20 percent), diabetes (19 percent), and stroke (12 percent).'' To ascertain the impact the waiting period has on the lives of these citizens, the Commonwealth Fund and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation conducted a follow-up to ``gain insight into the experiences of people with disabilities under age 65 in the Medicare 2-year waiting period.'' According to that second report entitled ``Waiting for Medicare: Experiences of Uninsured People with Disabilities in the Two- Year Waiting Period for Medicare'' in October 2004, ``Most of these individuals must invariably get by with some combination of living one day at a time, assertiveness, faith, and sheer luck.'' One person in the waiting period with a spinal cord injury from Atlanta, Georgia, seeking medical treatment for their condition was told to simply ``try not to get sick for 2 years.'' As the individual said in response, ``None of us TRIED to become disabled.'' The people that we have spoken to in the waiting period, since the introduction of this legislation last year, talk about foregoing critically needed medical treatment, stopping medications and therapy, feeling dismayed and depressed about their lives and future, and feeling a loss of control over their lives and independence while in the waiting period. These testimonials and appeals in support of this legislation are often emotional and intense. Some describe the waiting period as a ``living nightmare'' and appropriately ask how it is possible that their government is doing this to them. In fact, some have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware that the change in income, when they received SSDI, would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled. Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability. Nobody could possible think this makes any sense. House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas questioned the rationale of the waiting period in a press conference on April 29, 2005. As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.'' Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates in the study that Federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs. Furthermore, States, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs. Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage. And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the 2003 report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.'' To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period for individuals with amyothrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period. I would like to thank Senator DeWine and the other original cosponsors, including Senators Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes, for supporting this critically important legislation. Furthermore, I would like to commend Representative Gene Green of Texas for his introduction of the companion bill in the House of Representatives and for his work, diligence, and commitment to this issue. I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, which includes a list of original supporting organizations for the legislation, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President--I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish a capability within the State Department Science Advisor's Office to assess science and technology outside the United States. Over the past two years I have traveled to Taiwan, China and India to better understand why these developing countries' economies were growing so rapidly. I learned that in all cases the primary reason for their robust growth was the emergence of a well-trained science and engineering workforce that tied directly into their highly competitive innovation economies. For instance, Taiwan now leads the world in general purpose foundry computer chip facilities, controlling about 70 percent of the world market. A recent Defense Science Board Report entitled ``High Performance Microchip Supply'' notes that by the end of 2005 there will be 59 300mm chip fabrication plants with only 16 of these located in the United States. The number of U.S. plants has remained constant for the past two years, so as the number of Asian foundries has risen, the share of these advanced chip making facilities has declined from 30 to 20 percent. This report also notes that capital expenditures in the U.S. chip industry has fallen from a high of 42 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2004. Conversely, Taiwan's investment has increased from 15 percent in 2002 to 20 percent of the world's capital expenditure in chip facilities and now leads Korea, Japan, and Europe. There is a good explanation as to why countries such as Taiwan are rapidly rising in the high-technology world. Since 1984 Taiwan has made steady increases in their investments in the building of science based research parks. Hsinchu, their flagship science park, now has over 324 high technology companies, generating over $22 billion annually in gross revenues, and employing a high technology work force exceeding 100,000. This science park is bounded by two universities and contains six national laboratories. Taiwan is now building science parks in the middle and south of the island to concentrate on other fields such as nanoscience, optoelectronics, and biotechnology. These parks are the result of a number of carefully crafted government policies and incentives dealing with taxes, real estate, and fundamental research. In the area of technology transfer, the Taiwan government helped set up the world famous Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) which has over 5,000 scientists working to spin out laboratory ideas across the ``valley of death'' into new industries. Remarkably, the two chip foundry companies which now control 70 percent of the world's foundry market were launched from ITRI. As a result of this rapid economic growth, Taiwan's technical universities are now world class with their own excellent graduate programs. The reason they are side-by-side with these large science parks is to supply a steady stream of talented researchers. Recently, our National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, ``International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars,'' that Taiwan's domestic economic growth has led to fewer Taiwanese students applying to U.S. graduate schools. For the past two decades, Taiwan's students were the core supply of talent in our innovative science and engineering graduate school programs. Of equal concern, the successful Taiwanese scholars who attended graduate school in the United States 20 or 30 years ago are now returning home and giving back their professional wisdom to advance on their birth country's high-technology leadership. This same story holds true for India. My visit there this January yielded similar observations on their rapidly developing high technology sector. Since 1990, India has invested in the development of software and technology parks and currently has over 40 spread throughout the country. These parks were responsible for much of the high technology development in software and biotechnology. Indeed, multinational companies such as Intel, Microsoft and GE have built large research centers there to tap into the intellectual power educated at the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. GE's Jack Welch R&D Center in Bangalore has 2,300 Ph.D.'s conducting research in all aspects of their product lines. India's GE center now directs their plastics plant in Indiana on how to operate more efficiently in real time over the internet. Intel's research center has 2,000 product engineers designing the chips Americans will use in our computers and home entertainment centers next holiday season. The chips designed at Intel's Bangalore center are fabricated at their plant in Albuquerque. The tables have turned rather dramatically. We used to design the chips here and then they were manufactured overseas. When I visited Infosys, one of India's largest software companies, I was advised that in 2004 they received 1.2 million on-line employment applications, gave a standardized test to 300,000 job seekers interviewed 30,000, and then hired 10,000. They expect to repeat this same process again this year, which illustrates the deep pool of well trained talent that India has available. A number of the India's leading biotech entrepreneurs I visited with told me they weren't so much afraid of losing talent to the U.S. as they were to Singapore, with its burgeoning government investments in biotechnology. Similar to Taiwan, the National Academy report also documents a rapid drop in Indian student applications to U.S. graduate schools. India's rapidly developing economy encourages the best and brightest students to stay home and study in India rather than consider U.S. graduate schools. For the past 20 years, we have relied on this influx of the cream of the academic crop I from India and Taiwan to form the high- tech startup companies of Silicon Valley. The stark question before us--whether it involves India, Taiwan, China, or Singapore is: are we missing the bigger picture? By the time we realize we have a problem in innovation and our investments in science and engineering investments, will it be too late? Will these Pacific Rim countries have climbed past us up the value chain, and will they be able to produce equally innovative high technology product at far cheaper costs? The bill I am introducing today, may be small, but the consequences are enormous. This measure proposes to authorize a capability in the office of the Science Advisor to the Secretary of State to conduct assessments of the science and technology capabilities in other countries such as India, China and Taiwan. The director of this office will report to the Secretary of State's Science Advisor. The office will to the maximum extent possible utilize firms that can conduct science and technology assessments in the country of interest to minimize and augment the federal staff. That is why I have proposed giving the office generous contracting authorities with respect to soliciting contracts and disbursing funds so that it may move quickly to gather information on certain topics so that we as a nation are not caught by surprise by an advance in a high technology area. Additionally, this legislation authorizes a Foreign Science and Technology Assessment Panel whose purpose is to look over the horizon and choose topics and technologies to assess, as well as to evaluate the timeliness and quality of the reports generated. These reports are to be publicly available, benefiting not only our government by ensuring the nation's leadership in science and engineering, but also our private sector, especially those high technology firms that must successfully compete in a fierce global market. The panel members, to be selected by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, will be distinguished leaders who have expert knowledge about our competitors' capabilities in science and technology. High technology moves at a rapid rate, and every sign I picked up from my science and technology trips to China, India, Taiwan and Japan indicates to me that our government seems to be asleep at the switch here at home with regard to understanding how quickly these countries are moving up the value chain from simple manufacturing to sustained efforts in science and engineering that matches if not exceeds us in the innovation cycle. This bill, while a small step forward, will serve to ensure that we constantly assess where other countries are in that value chain and to make sure we are doing everything possible to maintain our leadership in fields of high technology. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005'' with Senators DeWine, Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses. When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.'' The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care. In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional 5 months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins. What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted 2 important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.'' Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. Of the 1.2 million people stuck in the 2-year waiting period at any given time, it is estimated that one-third, or 400,000, are left completely uninsured. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire. In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first 2 years of enrollment while waiting to be covered by Medicare. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled ``Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs,'' 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. In other words, it is estimated that of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. Let me repeat . . . 16,000 of the 400,000 uninsured disabled in the waiting period at any given moment will die while waiting for Medicare coverage to begin. Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group. According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the Federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52 percent), hypertension (46 percent), mental disorder (36 percent), heart condition (35 percent), chronic lung disease (26 percent), cancer (20 percent), diabetes (19 percent), and stroke (12 percent).'' To ascertain the impact the waiting period has on the lives of these citizens, the Commonwealth Fund and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation conducted a follow-up to ``gain insight into the experiences of people with disabilities under age 65 in the Medicare 2-year waiting period.'' According to that second report entitled ``Waiting for Medicare: Experiences of Uninsured People with Disabilities in the Two- Year Waiting Period for Medicare'' in October 2004, ``Most of these individuals must invariably get by with some combination of living one day at a time, assertiveness, faith, and sheer luck.'' One person in the waiting period with a spinal cord injury from Atlanta, Georgia, seeking medical treatment for their condition was told to simply ``try not to get sick for 2 years.'' As the individual said in response, ``None of us TRIED to become disabled.'' The people that we have spoken to in the waiting period, since the introduction of this legislation last year, talk about foregoing critically needed medical treatment, stopping medications and therapy, feeling dismayed and depressed about their lives and future, and feeling a loss of control over their lives and independence while in the waiting period. These testimonials and appeals in support of this legislation are often emotional and intense. Some describe the waiting period as a ``living nightmare'' and appropriately ask how it is possible that their government is doing this to them. In fact, some have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware that the change in income, when they received SSDI, would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled. Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability. Nobody could possible think this makes any sense. House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas questioned the rationale of the waiting period in a press conference on April 29, 2005. As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.'' Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates in the study that Federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs. Furthermore, States, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs. Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage. And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the 2003 report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.'' To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period for individuals with amyothrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period. I would like to thank Senator DeWine and the other original cosponsors, including Senators Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes, for supporting this critically important legislation. Furthermore, I would like to commend Representative Gene Green of Texas for his introduction of the companion bill in the House of Representatives and for his work, diligence, and commitment to this issue. I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, which includes a list of original supporting organizations for the legislation, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President--I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish a capability within the State Department Science Advisor's Office to assess science and technology outside the United States. Over the past two years I have traveled to Taiwan, China and India to better understand why these developing countries' economies were growing so rapidly. I learned that in all cases the primary reason for their robust growth was the emergence of a well-trained science and engineering workforce that tied directly into their highly competitive innovation economies. For instance, Taiwan now leads the world in general purpose foundry computer chip facilities, controlling about 70 percent of the world market. A recent Defense Science Board Report entitled ``High Performance Microchip Supply'' notes that by the end of 2005 there will be 59 300mm chip fabrication plants with only 16 of these located in the United States. The number of U.S. plants has remained constant for the past two years, so as the number of Asian foundries has risen, the share of these advanced chip making facilities has declined from 30 to 20 percent. This report also notes that capital expenditures in the U.S. chip industry has fallen from a high of 42 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2004. Conversely, Taiwan's investment has increased from 15 percent in 2002 to 20 percent of the world's capital expenditure in chip facilities and now leads Korea, Japan, and Europe. There is a good explanation as to why countries such as Taiwan are rapidly rising in the high-technology world. Since 1984 Taiwan has made steady increases in their investments in the building of science based research parks. Hsinchu, their flagship science park, now has over 324 high technology companies, generating over $22 billion annually in gross revenues, and employing a high technology work force exceeding 100,000. This science park is bounded by two universities and contains six national laboratories. Taiwan is now building science parks in the middle and south of the island to concentrate on other fields such as nanoscience, optoelectronics, and biotechnology. These parks are the result of a number of carefully crafted government policies and incentives dealing with taxes, real estate, and fundamental research. In the area of technology transfer, the Taiwan government helped set up the world famous Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) which has over 5,000 scientists working to spin out laboratory ideas across the ``valley of death'' into new industries. Remarkably, the two chip foundry companies which now control 70 percent of the world's foundry market were launched from ITRI. As a result of this rapid economic growth, Taiwan's technical universities are now world class with their own excellent graduate programs. The reason they are side-by-side with these large science parks is to supply a steady stream of talented researchers. Recently, our National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, ``International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars,'' that Taiwan's domestic economic growth has led to fewer Taiwanese students applying to U.S. graduate schools. For the past two decades, Taiwan's students were the core supply of talent in our innovative science and engineering graduate school programs. Of equal concern, the successful Taiwanese scholars who attended graduate school in the United States 20 or 30 years ago are now returning home and giving back their professional wisdom to advance on their birth country's high-technology leadership. This same story holds true for India. My visit there this January yielded similar observations on their rapidly developing high technology sector. Since 1990, India has invested in the development of software and technology parks and currently has over 40 spread throughout the country. These parks were responsible for much of the high technology development in software and biotechnology. Indeed, multinational companies such as Intel, Microsoft and GE have built large research centers there to tap into the intellectual power educated at the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. GE's Jack Welch R&D Center in Bangalore has 2,300 Ph.D.'s conducting research in all aspects of their product lines. India's GE center now directs their plastics plant in Indiana on how to operate more efficiently in real time over the internet. Intel's research center has 2,000 product engineers designing the chips Americans will use in our computers and home entertainment centers next holiday season. The chips designed at Intel's Bangalore center are fabricated at their plant in Albuquerque. The tables have turned rather dramatically. We used to design the chips here and then they were manufactured overseas. When I visited Infosys, one of India's largest software companies, I was advised that in 2004 they received 1.2 million on-line employment applications, gave a standardized test to 300,000 job seekers interviewed 30,000, and then hired 10,000. They expect to repeat this same process again this year, which illustrates the deep pool of well trained talent that India has available. A number of the India's leading biotech entrepreneurs I visited with told me they weren't so much afraid of losing talent to the U.S. as they were to Singapore, with its burgeoning government investments in biotechnology. Similar to Taiwan, the National Academy report also documents a rapid drop in Indian student applications to U.S. graduate schools. India's rapidly developing economy encourages the best and brightest students to stay home and study in India rather than consider U.S. graduate schools. For the past 20 years, we have relied on this influx of the cream of the academic crop I from India and Taiwan to form the high- tech startup companies of Silicon Valley. The stark question before us--whether it involves India, Taiwan, China, or Singapore is: are we missing the bigger picture? By the time we realize we have a problem in innovation and our investments in science and engineering investments, will it be too late? Will these Pacific Rim countries have climbed past us up the value chain, and will they be able to produce equally innovative high technology product at far cheaper costs? The bill I am introducing today, may be small, but the consequences are enormous. This measure proposes to authorize a capability in the office of the Science Advisor to the Secretary of State to conduct assessments of the science and technology capabilities in other countries such as India, China and Taiwan. The director of this office will report to the Secretary of State's Science Advisor. The office will to the maximum extent possible utilize firms that can conduct science and technology assessments in the country of interest to minimize and augment the federal staff. That is why I have proposed giving the office generous contracting authorities with respect to soliciting contracts and disbursing funds so that it may move quickly to gather information on certain topics so that we as a nation are not caught by surprise by an advance in a high technology area. Additionally, this legislation authorizes a Foreign Science and Technology Assessment Panel whose purpose is to look over the horizon and choose topics and technologies to assess, as well as to evaluate the timeliness and quality of the reports generated. These reports are to be publicly available, benefiting not only our government by ensuring the nation's leadership in science and engineering, but also our private sector, especially those high technology firms that must successfully compete in a fierce global market. The panel members, to be selected by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, will be distinguished leaders who have expert knowledge about our competitors' capabilities in science and technology. High technology moves at a rapid rate, and every sign I picked up from my science and technology trips to China, India, Taiwan and Japan indicates to me that our government seems to be asleep at the switch here at home with regard to understanding how quickly these countries are moving up the value chain from simple manufacturing to sustained efforts in science and engineering that matches if not exceeds us in the innovation cycle. This bill, while a small step forward, will serve to ensure that we constantly assess where other countries are in that value chain and to make sure we are doing everything possible to maintain our leadership in fields of high technology. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of this resolution to recognize Hispanic Media Week. The resolution provides an opportunity to recognize the vital contribution the Hispanic media makes not only to the Hispanic community but to the Nation at large. As the Hispanic community grows in numbers, business influence, and political power an integral part of their success has been the Hispanic media. Currently there are almost 600 Hispanic publishers in the United States with a combined readership of over 30 million. These publications represent Spanish, bilingual, and English daily, weekly, and periodic newspapers and magazines. Many of these publishers have persevered through years and even decades of low circulation numbers and industrywide skepticism to emerge today as a dynamic and growing segment of the publishing industry. The number of Hispanic publishers continues to grow larger and play an important role in getting vital information to this important segment of the population. In disseminating vital information to the Hispanic community, Hispanic publishers have performed a service not only to their own communities but to each and every community that strives towards a free and open exchange of ideas in the embodiment of the American dream.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I thank my friend from New York and congratulate him on his leadership on this very important issue. I find it very unfortunate that disagreements about judicial appointments have brought us to the point where the majority is ready to take away the longstanding right of each and every Senator to unlimited debate. That is a very major change in the way business has traditionally and historically been done in the Senate. This is a confrontation that could easily have been avoided by the President and his legal counsel if they had been willing to follow what I understand to be the normal practice that historically has prevailed and should prevail. Someone asked: What is that normal practice? It is simply the practice of consulting with the Senators most involved in the nominating process before making a final decision on which individuals to nominate. In the case of judicial nominees for Federal court positions in my State of New Mexico, and also positions to be filled on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that are designated for New Mexico attorneys, I have been contacted, and I have been asked if I had objections to perspective nominees in each case before a final decision to nominate has been made. And that is not just in the last year or 2, this is over the 22-plus years I have served in the Senate. As far as I can remember, I have been afforded that courtesy each time. We, the Senate, have confirmed; and Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr., and Clinton and now George W. Bush have nominated many individuals for the Federal court in my State during that time. It is also my understanding that more often than not the chair and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee have been afforded that same courtesy prior to the nomination of individuals to court of appeals positions or to a Supreme Court position. Much of the current confrontation and rancor could have been sidestepped if that practice had been followed with respect to the nominees who are currently in dispute. Unfortunately, this President has chosen a different course. Rather than consulting before a nomination is made, the White House has chosen to make nominations that it knows will be highly controversial, in some cases where it knows that the Senators from the nominee's State are strongly opposed to that nominee. Where nominations have been blocked during one Congress, the 108th Congress, last Congress, the President has chosen to renominate those same individuals in the succeeding Congress. Madam President, this is not a strategy to unite rather than divide the country. This is a strategy to split and to polarize the Senate and the American people, and it is clearly having that exact effect. Given where we are, I, like most of my colleagues, feel obliged to come to the Senate floor and speak on this so-called nuclear option. In my view, this is a misguided effort that will not only harm the Senate, it will also have a significant impact on the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers envisioned. I am disappointed that the majority leader has decided to pursue this course of action. I regret that he has repeatedly rejected the minority leader's offers to compromise on the issue. There are two distinct issues I want to discuss briefly today. The first is the manner in which the change is being made, the idea that the majority can simply change longstanding Senate rules whenever it believes it would be expedient to do so. I find that notion deeply troubling. We are a nation of laws, and our institutions need to reflect this. The second issue I want to discuss is the merits of the proposal and the impact of eliminating the ability to filibuster. The use of the filibuster not only ensures that minority views are respected in the Senate, it also plays an important role in checking the power of the executive branch and in ensuring that the judiciary remains independent. Let me take a moment to briefly describe what this nuclear option entails. I recognize that discussing rules and procedures is not an exciting topic, but it is important that the American public understand precisely what is being done. This is not about whether every nominee should get an up-or-down vote. It is about whether it is acceptable for the majority party to disregard longstanding Senate rules in order to get its way in each and every case that comes before the Senate. Senate rule V states that: The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. In accordance with Senate rule XXII, any such change can only be made with the approval of two-thirds of all Senators elected. That is 67 Senators. Requiring continuity of the rules from Congress to Congress, and requiring that changes to the rules meet a threshold vote well above a simple majority, has a very straightforward purpose. It ensures that the rules governing the Senate remain constant, that they are not changed whenever one party believes the rules are hampering their ability to get their way in the short term. Some in the majority party have complained that it is necessary to change the rules with respect to use of the filibuster on judicial nominees because in their view the current 60-vote requirement to end debate is too high. I have no objection to debating that issue and bringing it to a vote. Indeed, throughout the Senate's history there have been a variety of proposals to modify the rules governing the filibuster. For example, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required to end debate from 67 to 60. In 1995, I supported a proposal Senator Harkin offered which did not pass but would have revised the procedure. So why is not the majority leader bringing this proposal, which he is now threatening to make, up for a vote under normal procedure? Simply put, he does not have the votes to pass the measure if we stick by the rules of the Senate, the 67-vote rules of the Senate. So his proposal is simple: If you do not have the votes to pass the proposal using the rules as they exist, then make up your own rules so you can pass it. Under this procedural maneuver, if the Senate votes to not end debate on one of the disputed nominees, the majority leader intends to make a point of order requesting that the Presiding Chair, who will likely be the Vice President, rule that only 51 votes are needed to confirm appellate and Supreme Court nominees. Now, all of us know, and it is very clear to everyone who has studied this issue, that is not what the Parliamentarian would rule. The Parliamentarian has said just the opposite. Democrats will object, but the ruling would be upheld by a simple majority vote. It is my understanding this would be the first time that we have changed the rules of the Senate without following the prescribed procedure for doing so in the rules that we have adopted. This would entail overruling the Senate Parliamentarian. Madam President, I have to ask, what is the meaning of a rule if it is permissible to break it when one disagrees with the outcome that would result if the rule were followed? If the majority leader wants to try to modify the filibuster, he has the right to attempt that, but he should do so within the parameters of the Senate rules. It is dangerous to set a precedent of ignoring those rules that govern how we go about changing rules. Indeed, if one rule can be changed this way with a simple majority vote, why not others as well? The majority leader has argued that the Senate's record of processing the President's judicial nominees is so egregious that it justifies breaking the rules and disregarding over 200 years of precedent in order to get more nominees confirmed. Let's examine this record. My colleague from New York has already discussed at length the number of judges, appellate court judges, district court judges, we have approved in this Senate since this President has been in office. We have the lowest vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary since President Reagan was in office. The Senate has confirmed 95 percent of the President's nominees. In addition, Democrats have offered to bring up several of the disputed nominees for consideration, which would bring the confirmation rate closer to 98 percent. Unfortunately, the majority leader has rejected that proposed compromise. Some have also asserted that Democrats are charting new ground in filibustering judicial nominees. Frankly, this is just incorrect. It is contrary to the history of the Senate. Republicans did filibuster Abe Fortas in 1968 when he was nominated to be the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The filibuster was successful. He ultimately withdrew his nomination from consideration. I agree we have an obligation to process the President's judicial nominees in a fair and judicious manner, and, as the record demonstrates, that is exactly what we have been trying to do. However, I do understand the general frustration surrounding the processing of judicial nominees. During the Clinton administration, the Republican majority, during several of those years, killed over 60 nominees through a variety of delay tactics, mostly by refusing to give hearings in the Judiciary Committee. As a result, many of those nominees never got a chance to have a fair and open debate about their qualifications, much less a vote on the Senate floor. I believe we should look for ways to improve the confirmation process so that it is conducted in a more bipartisan and constructive manner. But exercising the so-called nuclear option is not a step in the right direction. Let's be clear on what this is about. It is about setting the stage for the debate over the next Supreme Court Justice. It is about putting in place a procedure that would limit the ability of Democrats and moderate Republicans to influence the debate. There would be little need to consult or to compromise if the nominee could be pushed through the Senate with a straight majority vote. As I have discussed, I strongly disagree with the tactics that have been chosen here to make these changes. With regard to the merits of the proposal to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the profound implications of moving forward with this effort. I believe such a change would be not only detrimental to the Senate as an institution but will also result in significant deterioration of the checks and balances that ensure the independence of our judiciary. Having a procedure in place that allows 40 Senators to keep a nominee or legislation from being adopted serves many purposes. Most important, it facilitates compromise by guaranteeing the minority a voice in the legislative process. Unlike in the House of Representatives, where legislation can be easily pushed through with a simple majority vote, the Senate is an institution where deliberation and compromise are absolutely essential. Forcing Senators to achieve common ground in order to complete the people's work is something that should be encouraged. Bipartisanship has been in short supply in recent years, and we need to be looking for ways to work together to address the challenges we face in America. I have had the privilege of representing the people of New Mexico for over 22 years now in the Senate. I recognize the importance of working across the aisle to achieve results. Earlier this week, we held the first of several hearings on comprehensive energy legislation to try to mark up legislation in that area. I am extremely encouraged by how members of the committee from both parties have been working together. It is my hope that bipartisanship and sense of compromise can be adopted elsewhere in the Senate. This exemplifies how we should be facilitating more compromise between the majority and minority parties. The filibuster is not only an important check on the majority power within the Senate, but it is also an essential check on the executive branch. Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides the Senate and the President shall share the power to appoint judicial nominees. The President is granted the authority to nominate. The Senate is vested with the authority to provide its advice and consent. This is a serious constitutional duty. I do not believe the Senate should be relegated to the role of a glorified rubberstamp. That is not what the American people want, not what the Founding Fathers envisioned. The prospect of a filibuster forces the President to submit nominees to the Senate who will be able to garner the support of more than a simple majority of that President's own party. There are plenty of well-qualified, conservative lawyers and judges who would easily be confirmed by this Senate. In fact, the Senate has confirmed over 200 of them since this President has been in office. At the beginning of this Congress, the President chose to resubmit several of the most controversial nominees who lacked widespread support, rather than to heed the concerns that had been raised about their nominations. The Senate has coequal responsibilities in the appointment process. It is important for the administration to recognize this when it decides which nominees to send to the Senate for consideration. Without the filibuster, the President would essentially be free to appoint whomever he wants to the Federal judiciary with very little restraint. This would threaten the independence of the judiciary, which is charged with checking the actions of the executive and legislative branches, by allowing a President to stack the courts with individuals willing to advance a particular agenda or ideology. If the same party controls the Senate and the White House, as is the case today, the ability to filibuster is a primary restraint on the majority party of using its power in the nomination and confirmation process. As the Framers recognized, it is reasonable to require that a lifetime appointee have the support of a substantial percentage of Senators who have been elected. There is a reason why the Framers granted the Senate and not the House of Representatives the constitutional authority to provide advice and consent. The Senate's procedures ensure extended debate and respect for minority views, which in turn facilitate compromise and moderation. I personally believe that having qualified and reasonable judges in the Federal judiciary, regardless of political party, who interpret the law objectively and in accordance with mainstream legal theory is a good thing. These are lifetime appointments, which deserve rigorous debate and substantial scrutiny. This scrutiny would be significantly diminished if the majority party could appoint whoever they want to the judiciary without concern for the views of the minority. And the independence of the judiciary would be threatened if judges approach their work with a particular concern for carrying out the will of the party in power at that moment. It is not surprising that a President would seek to expand his authority in the appointment process. But it is disappointing to think that the Senate might accede to this and abrogate its own constitutional authority in exercising its obligation to provide advice and consent. Lastly, the proponents of the nuclear option have said they only want to eliminate the filibuster with regard to nominees, not with regard to legislation. But nothing about their reasoning is unique to nominees. If this can be done with regard to judicial nominees, it can certainly be done with regard to executive branch nominees as well. And there is no logic for arguing it cannot be done with regard to legislation. As I have stated, I have many concerns about employing this tactic and disregarding Senate tradition. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to seriously consider the ramifications of this so-called nuclear option. It is not good for the Senate, it is not good for the delicate checks and balances that govern our Government, and it is not in the interest of the American people. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Frist, Cantwell, Lugar, Santorum, Collins, Cochran, Murray, and Feinstein named the ``Covering Kids Act of 2005.'' This legislation is intended to improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted toward children and pregnant women and is very similar to language included in legislation I introduced in the 107th Congress entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act'' and earlier this year with Senator Lugar entitled ``Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act.'' The legislation provides $100 million in grants over the next two years to community and faith-based organizations, safety net organizations such as community health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, tribal providers or organizations, schools, or State or local governments for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts. The bill includes language from legislation introduced by Senator Lugar and me that would promote what is called ``Express Lane Eligibility.'' This approach uses two strategies to find and enroll eligible but uninsured children by: 1. targeting large numbers of eligible children in other public benefit programs like school lunch and food stamps; 2. expediting their enrollment in health coverage by using income-eligibility information already submitted by parents when they enrolled their children in these other public programs. In combination, these two common-sense ideas could have a dramatic impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our Nation's children, which we must do. According to the American College of Physicians, uninsured children, when compared to insured children, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental, or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. Another study estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent. I would add that the expansion period occurred during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations with strong Democratic congressional support, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action once again. In fact, during the last presidential campaign, President Bush made very few promises when it came to reducing the number of uninsured in this country. However, he did make the promise to reduce the number of uninsured by conducting additional efforts in outreach and enrollment. As he said in a speech in Pennsylvania on October 21, 2004, ``We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low-income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need.'' I agree and hope that with the support of the Administration and the Majority Leader in his introduction of this bipartisan legislation today that we can secure passage of it this year. Despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has, in combination with Medicaid, caused a reduction in the rate of uninsured children in recent years, it is estimated that 5-6 million of the remaining 9.2 million uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. In New Mexico, there are an estimated 80,000, or 15.2 percent, of the children in my State without health insurance despite the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP cover children all the way up to 235 percent of the poverty level. Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. As the Urban Institute has said, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.'' The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. The State of California has taken some important strides to eliminate some of these barriers through what they call their Express Lane Eligibility, or ELE, initiative, which allowed the sharing of income- eligibility information across public programs. Unfortunately, Down Horner, Beth Marrow, and Wendy Lazarus of the Children's Partnership in California found in their report entitled ``Building an On-Ramp to Children's Health Coverage: A Report on California's Express Lane Eligibility Program": ``A clear lesson from California's experience is that there is only so far a state can go in putting an ELE system in place. In the end, existing Federal rules tend to thwart efforts to create a truly efficient process. In California, instead of allowing Medi-Cal to use a school lunch program's income determination, both school lunch and Medi-Cal have to recount a family's income based on their own rules.'' If we can engage in innovative enrollment and outreach activities and promote ELE types of activities in the states, it clearly could have a profound impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our nation's children. I would like to express my thanks to the Majority Leader and his staff for working through a number of issues with me prior to the introduction of this legislation. I think the bill is stronger, as a result, and look forward to working with him on trying to get the bill enacted in this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Frist, Cantwell, Lugar, Santorum, Collins, Cochran, Murray, and Feinstein named the ``Covering Kids Act of 2005.'' This legislation is intended to improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted toward children and pregnant women and is very similar to language included in legislation I introduced in the 107th Congress entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act'' and earlier this year with Senator Lugar entitled ``Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act.'' The legislation provides $100 million in grants over the next two years to community and faith-based organizations, safety net organizations such as community health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, tribal providers or organizations, schools, or State or local governments for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts. The bill includes language from legislation introduced by Senator Lugar and me that would promote what is called ``Express Lane Eligibility.'' This approach uses two strategies to find and enroll eligible but uninsured children by: 1. targeting large numbers of eligible children in other public benefit programs like school lunch and food stamps; 2. expediting their enrollment in health coverage by using income-eligibility information already submitted by parents when they enrolled their children in these other public programs. In combination, these two common-sense ideas could have a dramatic impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our Nation's children, which we must do. According to the American College of Physicians, uninsured children, when compared to insured children, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental, or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury. Another study estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent. I would add that the expansion period occurred during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations with strong Democratic congressional support, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action once again. In fact, during the last presidential campaign, President Bush made very few promises when it came to reducing the number of uninsured in this country. However, he did make the promise to reduce the number of uninsured by conducting additional efforts in outreach and enrollment. As he said in a speech in Pennsylvania on October 21, 2004, ``We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low-income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need.'' I agree and hope that with the support of the Administration and the Majority Leader in his introduction of this bipartisan legislation today that we can secure passage of it this year. Despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has, in combination with Medicaid, caused a reduction in the rate of uninsured children in recent years, it is estimated that 5-6 million of the remaining 9.2 million uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. In New Mexico, there are an estimated 80,000, or 15.2 percent, of the children in my State without health insurance despite the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP cover children all the way up to 235 percent of the poverty level. Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. As the Urban Institute has said, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.'' The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. The State of California has taken some important strides to eliminate some of these barriers through what they call their Express Lane Eligibility, or ELE, initiative, which allowed the sharing of income- eligibility information across public programs. Unfortunately, Down Horner, Beth Marrow, and Wendy Lazarus of the Children's Partnership in California found in their report entitled ``Building an On-Ramp to Children's Health Coverage: A Report on California's Express Lane Eligibility Program": ``A clear lesson from California's experience is that there is only so far a state can go in putting an ELE system in place. In the end, existing Federal rules tend to thwart efforts to create a truly efficient process. In California, instead of allowing Medi-Cal to use a school lunch program's income determination, both school lunch and Medi-Cal have to recount a family's income based on their own rules.'' If we can engage in innovative enrollment and outreach activities and promote ELE types of activities in the states, it clearly could have a profound impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our nation's children. I would like to express my thanks to the Majority Leader and his staff for working through a number of issues with me prior to the introduction of this legislation. I think the bill is stronger, as a result, and look forward to working with him on trying to get the bill enacted in this Congress.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, 40 years ago in the April 1965 issue of Electronics magazine, Gordon Moore, a young engineer, accurately forecast years of exponential improvements in computer chip performance. His abstract observations led to the most concrete results. In his article entitled, ``Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits,'' Moore first articulated his thinking on the future of the integrated circuit. Later, he theorized that the number of transistors on a computer chip would continue to double in power for the same price every 18 months. This postulation became popularly known as Moore's Law, and it was a stunning challenge for scientists and engineers to discover new phenomena and ideas to maintain America's technological momentum. Shortly thereafter, Gordon Moore helped found the Intel Corporation, which started as a pioneer in cutting-edge semiconductor technology and today remains at the frontier of innovation in integrated circuits. Since that time, all in accordance with Moore's Law, there have been more than three dozen such doublings in computer chip performance. No wonder that we marvel how our world has changed more in the past century than in the previous hundred centuries. It took 10,000 years to get from the dawn of civilization to the airplane, but just 66 years to get from powered flight to the moon landing. In 1971, Intel could fit 2300 transistors on a silicon chip; later this year, Intel is expected to unveil a chip with nearly 2 billion transistors. ``It's kind of a Biblical thing,'' Leon Lederman, the Nobel laureate, once noted, ``Science begets technology. Once we have transistors, we can make computers. When we have computers, we can make much better transistors . . . which can make better computers.'' In the years ahead, networked supercomputers operating at speeds of over one thousand trillion operations per second will have implications as profound as the Industrial Revolution's spread of technology. Such technological innovation, predicted by Moore's Law, has led to advances in virtually every industry and has fundamentally impacted the way we live, work, and play. Information technology has become commonplace in our schools, libraries, homes, offices, and businesses-- and new information technology applications are still developing rapidly. Information technology has had a mutually reinforcing relationship with our ``golden age'' of science and engineering. Advances in supercomputers, simulations, and networks are creating a new window into the natural world--making computing as valuable for theory and experimentation as a tool for scientific discovery. It has accelerated the pace of scientific discovery across the board in all scientific disciplines. Information visualization and simulation technologies make it possible to learn, explore, and communicate more complex concepts. Supercomputer technology, for example, allows researchers to develop lifesaving drugs more rapidly, better understand the functions of our genes once they have been sequenced, or more accurately predict tornadoes. Advanced information technology tools have emerged to support ``collaboratories''--geographically separate research units on different sides of the world functioning as a single laboratory. Perhaps the most important area where information technology's impact has been greatest is in our economic sector. It is commonly credited as being a key factor in our economy's structural shift from manufacturing to services, altering the nature of our work and the needs of our workforce. The widespread diffusion of information technology throughout the economy, and its integration into new business models producing more efficient production methods added a full percentage point to the Nation's productivity after 1995. Economists note that productivity is the most important driver of long-term economic growth, and information technology increases economic output more than any other type of capital investment. Beginning in 1995, U.S. productivity--spurred by information technology applications--accelerated to rates of growth not seen in two decades. The difference between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent productivity growth is the difference between the standard of living doubling in one generation or in two generations. It has enormous implications. The impact of Moore's Law and the resulting U.S. technology industry has also had enormous implications for my home State of New Mexico. We are proud to be part of the drive within the technology industry to keep pace with Moore's Law. Small and large businesses alike which are part of our local technology industry have led to steadily increasing economic growth and development. Intel Corporation, with Gordon Moore at its helm, has become a major contributor to our State's economy and is an example of the impact that U.S. technological leadership has at a local level. Overall, Intel has a significant economic and fiscal impact on our State and region. Intel came to Rio Rancho, just outside of Albuquerque, in 1980 and has grown to become our State's largest private manufacturer. Intel New Mexico employs more than 5,000 people and pays some of the highest wages. In 2001-2002, Intel spent $2 billion on new facilities and upgrades to other facilities. Moreover, Intel's continued growth has brought other benefits to our communities as well, particularly in the area of education. Intel made a $2 million donation to the National Hispanic Cultural Center to integrate the latest technology tools in support of the Intel Center for Technology and the Visual Arts. Intel's ``Teach to the Future'' has provided technology training for more than 6,000 New Mexico teachers to help them incorporate technology into their curricula and help prepare our children for the jobs of the 21st century. Intel has also launched two Computer Clubhouses, technology and mentoring programs for youth in Albuquerque and Santa Fe. While Moore's Law has meant so much to my State and our Nation, we need to acknowledge that engineering, computer chips, and information technology are about more than our material wealth or our simple acquisition of knowledge. Basically, they are about our dreams. We have always been a Nation that is defined by the great goals we set, the great dreams we dream. We have always been a restless, questing people--and with willpower, resources, and great national effort, we have always reached our horizons and then set out for new ones. So on this 40th anniversary of Moore's Law, I want to salute the extraordinarily important contributions of Gordon Moore, the Intel Corporation, and the many other scientists and engineers who have helped us imagine and invent the future. In large measure, their contributions have made this new century before us so full of promise--molded by science, shaped by technology, and powered by knowledge. These potent transforming forces can give us lives richer and fuller than we have ever known before.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords that would increase Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States by addressing a problem with the Medicaid funding formula that is expected to result in a majority of States in the country having their Federal matching rate drop this coming fiscal year. Our legislation, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005,'' would protect these 28 States from decreases in the amount of Federal funding they can expect to receive in fiscal year 2006. For the vulnerable low- income children, pregnant women, disabled, and senior citizens that the Medicaid programs in those 28 States serve. This legislation may be the only thing preventing them from losing their health benefits and joining the ranks of our Nation's uninsured, which is already at 45 million people. In New Mexico, more than one-in-five or over 400,000 New Mexicans are uninsured and the State is facing a $78 million reduction in the federal Medicaid matching rate for fiscal year 2006. This is not the result of a dramatic upswing in the economy in New Mexico. The most recent poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau actually indicates an upswing in the percentage of New Mexicans in poverty at 18 percent--the second highest poverty rate in the country. Thus, at the very time when there are more people in need of medical care through the Medicaid program, the Federal Government is apparently reducing its assistance through Medicaid. So how is this possible? The first problem is with the Medicaid matching formula itself. It is based on per capita income, which was established as a proxy for both need and State capacity many years ago. We now have much better data on what should be the factors in the Medicaid formula, including poverty and total taxable resource measures, but the old proxy of per capita income remains. Despite numerous reports from the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and outside organizations calling for such an update to the Federal Medicaid formula, nothing has happened over the years. Rather than fighting that battle again, our legislation acknowledges that we are stuck with per capita income as the formula factor. Instead, we take issue with how that factor is dropping Federal matching rates across the Nation while the national poverty rate continues to rise. Again, how is this possible? In the fall of 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, for fiscal year 2006 based on per capital income, PCI, data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, Issue Brief in September 2004, changes in the FMAP will cause States to lose a net $527 million in Federal matching funds in the Medicaid Program with decreases of $867 million to 29 States partially offset by increases for 9 States. CMS acknowledges that 29 States will lose Federal funding, nine States will gain, and the balance of the States will not be impacted by the Medicaid changes because the latter group of 12 States are already at the statutory minimum FMAP of 50 percent. Federal law dictates that the FMAP is determined based on the ``three most recent calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.'' Thus, for fiscal year 2006, the PCI data used is from the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Federal intent of a 3-year rolling average is to limit the fluctuations that States might experience since only one-third of the formula is changed on a yearly basis. In other words, Congress felt it important enough to limit the fluctuations in the matching rate through the 3-year rolling average of PCI data that the result is the use of data from 2001 for the calculation of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP. However, as analysis by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority indicates, in the case of the calculation, of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, performed a comprehensive revision of its calculation of PCI in 2003, as it does every 4 to 5 years, and provided revised data for previous years as well. As a result, CMS changed the 2001 and 2002 PCI data for States in the calculation, Consequently, all 3 years of the PCI data were being changed rather than just one-third. The result is rather dramatic fluctuations--mostly negative--to State FMAP calculations, As the FFIS Issue Brief indicated, ``Fifteen States are projected to have changes of greater than one percentage point in fiscal year 2006, compared to only three for FY 2005.'' Not since 1998 have the fluctuations been this dramatic. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the average change in the FMAP between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 was -0.26 percentage points, for fiscal year 2003 it was +0.32, for fiscal year 2004 it was +0.12, and for fiscal year 2005 it was -0.09. Thus, over this 4-year period, the average change in the national FMAP was less than 0.2 percentage points. However, due in part to the rebenchmarking of data by BEA, the fiscal year 2006 change in the FMAP will be -0.55 percentage points. Compared to average change over the preceeding 4 years, the fiscal year 2006 FMAP change will be almost three times as dramatic. As a result, 29 States will absorb a decline in the FMAP for fiscal year 2006. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimates that this will cost those States $860 million. The largest projected percentage point decreases are for Alaska, -7.42, Wyoming, -3.67, New Mexico, -3.15, Oklahoma, -2.27, Maine, -1.99, West Virginia, -1.66, North Dakota, -1.64, Vermont, -1.62, Utah, -1.38, Montana, -1.36, Alabama, -1.32, Louisiana, -1.25, Nevada, -1.14, and Mississippi, -1.08. The largest dollar declines would be experienced by the states of New Mexico, -$79 million, Louisiana, -$72 million, Alaska, -$69 million, Tennessee, -$68 million, Oklahoma, -$66 million, Alabama, -$55 million, and Maine, -$47 million. FFIS adds, ``While the changes in FY 2006 are significant, for many states they only add to previous reductions. Thirteen states (Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) will experience three consecutive reductions--from the fiscal relief FMAP to the base FMAP in FY 2004 to a second reduction in FY 2005 and a third in FY 2006. The cumulative 5-year reduction for a number of States is large, and for many unprecedented--Wyoming (-10.37), Alaska (-9.97), North Dakota (-4.14), Vermont (-3.91), Oklahoma (-3.33), Maine (-3.22), and South Dakota (-3.24).'' The loss in funds to these 29 States is already resulting in planned cuts in benefits and services to Medicaid eligible recipients, such as low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled, and decreased reimbursement to Medicaid providers, including physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, etc. In an effort to minimize the dramatic fluctuations in the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP, this legislation would limit the loss of States in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points, which restores $442 million of the lost Medicaid dollars to 18 States. The bill would also give 10 additional States a higher FMAP if changes to PCI for 2001 and 2002 were not retroactively applied by CMS. This translates to approximately $229 million for a total of $671 million. This is still far less than the $860 million lost to the 29 States by FMAP reductions. Therefore, this legislation I am introducing with Senator Snowe and others does not hold States entirely harmless. However, it does limit the losses in Federal Medicaid matching funds that States are expected to absorb due to problems with the use of per capita income as a factor in the Medicaid formula but also in how it is used. Our legislation mitigates those problems, and does so with the expressed intent of preventing millions of additional Americans from joining the ranks of the uninsured as many of our States will be forced to undertake cuts to the Medicaid program to make up for lost Federal funding. Specifically, the bill allows States to get the better of: 1. the FMAP as calculated by CMS; 2. a recalculated FMAP without retroactively changing the 2001 and 2002 per capita income data; or, 3. a hold harmless limiting the reduction in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points. In New Mexico, for example, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005'' would restore $66 million of the $78 million that New Mexico is scheduled to lose due to the drop in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. The other 27 States that would benefit from the legislation and the estimated amount they would receive are as follows: Texas--$113 million, New Mexico--$66 million, Alaska--$64 million, Oklahoma--$52 million, Louisiana--$43 million, Maine--$35 million, Alabama--$34 million, West Virginia--$27 million, Tennessee--$27 million, Florida-- $25 million, Mississippi--$22 million, Arizona--$22 million, Nevada-- $17 million, Arkansas--$14 million, Utah--$14 million, North Carolina-- $14 million, Wyoming--$13 million, Vermont--$10 million, Wisconsin--$9 million, Rhode Island--$8 million, Georgia--$8 million, Oregon--$6 million, North Dakota--$6 million, Montana--$6 million, South Carolina--$6 million, Idaho--$5 million, South Dakota--$3 million, and Kansas--$2 million. I would like to thank the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, including Mike Fogarty and Stephen Weiss, for their outstanding work in analyzing the problem with the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP and for their technical assistance and counsel toward the introduction of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords for providing bipartisan support as original cosponsors of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record. There be no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords that would increase Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States by addressing a problem with the Medicaid funding formula that is expected to result in a majority of States in the country having their Federal matching rate drop this coming fiscal year. Our legislation, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005,'' would protect these 28 States from decreases in the amount of Federal funding they can expect to receive in fiscal year 2006. For the vulnerable low- income children, pregnant women, disabled, and senior citizens that the Medicaid programs in those 28 States serve. This legislation may be the only thing preventing them from losing their health benefits and joining the ranks of our Nation's uninsured, which is already at 45 million people. In New Mexico, more than one-in-five or over 400,000 New Mexicans are uninsured and the State is facing a $78 million reduction in the federal Medicaid matching rate for fiscal year 2006. This is not the result of a dramatic upswing in the economy in New Mexico. The most recent poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau actually indicates an upswing in the percentage of New Mexicans in poverty at 18 percent--the second highest poverty rate in the country. Thus, at the very time when there are more people in need of medical care through the Medicaid program, the Federal Government is apparently reducing its assistance through Medicaid. So how is this possible? The first problem is with the Medicaid matching formula itself. It is based on per capita income, which was established as a proxy for both need and State capacity many years ago. We now have much better data on what should be the factors in the Medicaid formula, including poverty and total taxable resource measures, but the old proxy of per capita income remains. Despite numerous reports from the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and outside organizations calling for such an update to the Federal Medicaid formula, nothing has happened over the years. Rather than fighting that battle again, our legislation acknowledges that we are stuck with per capita income as the formula factor. Instead, we take issue with how that factor is dropping Federal matching rates across the Nation while the national poverty rate continues to rise. Again, how is this possible? In the fall of 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, for fiscal year 2006 based on per capital income, PCI, data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, Issue Brief in September 2004, changes in the FMAP will cause States to lose a net $527 million in Federal matching funds in the Medicaid Program with decreases of $867 million to 29 States partially offset by increases for 9 States. CMS acknowledges that 29 States will lose Federal funding, nine States will gain, and the balance of the States will not be impacted by the Medicaid changes because the latter group of 12 States are already at the statutory minimum FMAP of 50 percent. Federal law dictates that the FMAP is determined based on the ``three most recent calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.'' Thus, for fiscal year 2006, the PCI data used is from the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Federal intent of a 3-year rolling average is to limit the fluctuations that States might experience since only one-third of the formula is changed on a yearly basis. In other words, Congress felt it important enough to limit the fluctuations in the matching rate through the 3-year rolling average of PCI data that the result is the use of data from 2001 for the calculation of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP. However, as analysis by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority indicates, in the case of the calculation, of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, performed a comprehensive revision of its calculation of PCI in 2003, as it does every 4 to 5 years, and provided revised data for previous years as well. As a result, CMS changed the 2001 and 2002 PCI data for States in the calculation, Consequently, all 3 years of the PCI data were being changed rather than just one-third. The result is rather dramatic fluctuations--mostly negative--to State FMAP calculations, As the FFIS Issue Brief indicated, ``Fifteen States are projected to have changes of greater than one percentage point in fiscal year 2006, compared to only three for FY 2005.'' Not since 1998 have the fluctuations been this dramatic. According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the average change in the FMAP between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 was -0.26 percentage points, for fiscal year 2003 it was +0.32, for fiscal year 2004 it was +0.12, and for fiscal year 2005 it was -0.09. Thus, over this 4-year period, the average change in the national FMAP was less than 0.2 percentage points. However, due in part to the rebenchmarking of data by BEA, the fiscal year 2006 change in the FMAP will be -0.55 percentage points. Compared to average change over the preceeding 4 years, the fiscal year 2006 FMAP change will be almost three times as dramatic. As a result, 29 States will absorb a decline in the FMAP for fiscal year 2006. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimates that this will cost those States $860 million. The largest projected percentage point decreases are for Alaska, -7.42, Wyoming, -3.67, New Mexico, -3.15, Oklahoma, -2.27, Maine, -1.99, West Virginia, -1.66, North Dakota, -1.64, Vermont, -1.62, Utah, -1.38, Montana, -1.36, Alabama, -1.32, Louisiana, -1.25, Nevada, -1.14, and Mississippi, -1.08. The largest dollar declines would be experienced by the states of New Mexico, -$79 million, Louisiana, -$72 million, Alaska, -$69 million, Tennessee, -$68 million, Oklahoma, -$66 million, Alabama, -$55 million, and Maine, -$47 million. FFIS adds, ``While the changes in FY 2006 are significant, for many states they only add to previous reductions. Thirteen states (Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) will experience three consecutive reductions--from the fiscal relief FMAP to the base FMAP in FY 2004 to a second reduction in FY 2005 and a third in FY 2006. The cumulative 5-year reduction for a number of States is large, and for many unprecedented--Wyoming (-10.37), Alaska (-9.97), North Dakota (-4.14), Vermont (-3.91), Oklahoma (-3.33), Maine (-3.22), and South Dakota (-3.24).'' The loss in funds to these 29 States is already resulting in planned cuts in benefits and services to Medicaid eligible recipients, such as low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled, and decreased reimbursement to Medicaid providers, including physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, etc. In an effort to minimize the dramatic fluctuations in the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP, this legislation would limit the loss of States in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points, which restores $442 million of the lost Medicaid dollars to 18 States. The bill would also give 10 additional States a higher FMAP if changes to PCI for 2001 and 2002 were not retroactively applied by CMS. This translates to approximately $229 million for a total of $671 million. This is still far less than the $860 million lost to the 29 States by FMAP reductions. Therefore, this legislation I am introducing with Senator Snowe and others does not hold States entirely harmless. However, it does limit the losses in Federal Medicaid matching funds that States are expected to absorb due to problems with the use of per capita income as a factor in the Medicaid formula but also in how it is used. Our legislation mitigates those problems, and does so with the expressed intent of preventing millions of additional Americans from joining the ranks of the uninsured as many of our States will be forced to undertake cuts to the Medicaid program to make up for lost Federal funding. Specifically, the bill allows States to get the better of: 1. the FMAP as calculated by CMS; 2. a recalculated FMAP without retroactively changing the 2001 and 2002 per capita income data; or, 3. a hold harmless limiting the reduction in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points. In New Mexico, for example, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005'' would restore $66 million of the $78 million that New Mexico is scheduled to lose due to the drop in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. The other 27 States that would benefit from the legislation and the estimated amount they would receive are as follows: Texas--$113 million, New Mexico--$66 million, Alaska--$64 million, Oklahoma--$52 million, Louisiana--$43 million, Maine--$35 million, Alabama--$34 million, West Virginia--$27 million, Tennessee--$27 million, Florida-- $25 million, Mississippi--$22 million, Arizona--$22 million, Nevada-- $17 million, Arkansas--$14 million, Utah--$14 million, North Carolina-- $14 million, Wyoming--$13 million, Vermont--$10 million, Wisconsin--$9 million, Rhode Island--$8 million, Georgia--$8 million, Oregon--$6 million, North Dakota--$6 million, Montana--$6 million, South Carolina--$6 million, Idaho--$5 million, South Dakota--$3 million, and Kansas--$2 million. I would like to thank the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, including Mike Fogarty and Stephen Weiss, for their outstanding work in analyzing the problem with the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP and for their technical assistance and counsel toward the introduction of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords for providing bipartisan support as original cosponsors of this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record. There be no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I rise today in support of H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief. First, while this bill addresses many areas of concern, it is primarily focused on providing the American military sufficient funds for its mission to aid Afghanistan in creating a strong and stable nation and to ensure the security necessary to rebuild Iraq. Provisions in the bills to support American soldiers and their families, such as increasing the death benefit gratuity for soldiers killed this year to $100,000 and providing all members of the armed forces with free meals and phone service, are the right thing to do. We will no longer force men and women who volunteered to serve in one of the most dangerous environments to recuperate without the support of loved ones while charging them for their meals. Other important provisions, such as providing more money to combat the effectiveness of improvised explosive devices, or lED's, and providing $150 million for the purchase of up-armored humvees, will serve to protect Americans already operating in combat zones. The biggest danger to Americans in uniform remains the IED; by using funds to both prevent the IED from exploding and then ensuring that those that do go off near a humvee are defended against, I can safely say that we are working toward the ultimate goal of mitigating the largest source of American casualties. I was also happy to see that the bill also requires reports on the status of training for both the Afghan and Iraqi security forces, so that the American public is not given arbitrary numbers of successfully trained soldiers and policemen without an understanding of their capabilities. Just as importantly, the bill states that the President should submit an appropriate budget amendment for FY 2006 by September 1, 2005. There are also some very important, non-military, provisions in this legislation, nearly all of which I co-sponsored when it came to the floor. All will contribute significantly to the establishment of increased stability in regions throughout the world. For example, the United States has done far too little to stop the genocide and atrocities that continue to occur in Darfur, Sudan. This legislation specifically dedicates $50 million to support efforts by the African Union to bring a halt to the violence and another $90 million in humanitarian assistance for refugees in the region. The United States has hardly anything at all to create a stable and viable government in Haiti, this in spite of the fact that the country is only miles from our shore. This legislation provides $20 million to assist in efforts at institution-building, law enforcement, and democracy promotion. Significantly, this legislation is the only vehicle available for disaster assistance to the countries affected by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. I need not remind anyone that this was likely the most catastrophic natural event in recent history, with nearly 200,000 people in eight countries dying in just a few hours. Over 100,000 are still missing. Thousands had their homes, family, and livelihoods swept away. The cost in dollars is easily in the hundreds of billions. It is imperative that the United States step up to the plate and assist in repair and reconstruction. We have pledged almost a billion dollars to this effort, and this legislation provides an initial $656 million to help people get back on their feet. A substantial portion of the funding is directed toward repairing replacing essential services-- roads and highways, telecommunications and energy infrastructure, and water and food distribution systems, and so on. But portions of the funding are dedicated to other critical issues that will allow these countries to get back to baseline--programs designed to assist women with new economic opportunities now that they have lost the provider in their families, programs designed to assist individuals with mental or physical disabilities as a result of the tsunami, programs designed to protect orphaned children from violence and exploitation and reunify them with extended or immediate families, programs to provide loans, business advice and training in job skills so new sources of income and new businesses are developed; and programs to stop the spread of disease, including avian flu. This bill provides funding for many important causes which I fully support. But let me take a few moments to discuss a few provisions about which I have significant concerns. First, the conference committee removed a provision that I had included in the Senate version of the bill that would have helped Federal courts cover costs associated with the substantial increase in immigration related cases filed as a result of recent border enforcement efforts. I strongly support efforts to enhance our border security--indeed, I cosponsored an amendment to this bill that was offered by Senator Robert Byrd that provided funding to hire an additional 500 border patrol agents and have consistently voted to allocate additional resources to secure our Nation's border. However, we must also consider the impact that these enforcement measures are having on our Nation's courts, especially in districts along the border region. Since 1995, immigration cases in the 5 southwestern border districts--the District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Southern District of California, and Southern and Western Districts of Texas--have grown approximately 828 percent. In 2003, overall immigration filings in U.S. District Courts jumped 22 percent, and in 2004 they jumped 11 percent. Of these cases, 69 percent came from these 5 districts. We can't just fund the enforcement side without considering what will happen to these individuals once they are detained. This approach not only places a tremendous burden on our courts, but it also threatens our national security by limiting the ability of the courts and probation services to provide adequate case oversight. Second, the REAL ID Act, which was attached to the bill by the House of Representatives, was included in the final version of the bill. Although the conference committee made several minor modifications to lessen the impact of these provisions, I remain strongly opposed to this section of the bill. The REAL ID Act never received a hearing in the Senate and Republicans on the conference committee refused to consult with their Democrat counterparts on this language. The bill make it more difficult for legitimate asylum applicants to obtain a safe haven in the United States and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements which could impede the construction of a fence along the border with Mexico. It also repeals provisions of the recently-passed Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, the intelligence reform bill charged the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the States, with promulgating ``minimum standards'' for State driver's licenses in order to prevent fraud or abuse. Without enhancing our national security, the REAL ID Act repeals this section and replaces it with a system that will be extremely difficult and costly for States to implement. I know that these provisions will have a significant impact on my home State of New Mexico, and it is my hope that Congress will be able to revisit this legislation in the near future. Thus, while there are some aspects of this supplemental request that remain troubling to me and many of my Senate colleagues, I know that by supporting this bill we are working to create a more peaceful and stable world community and meet more of the needs of our brave soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and commend him for the good work he has done on this budget and pointing out the flaws in this budget resolution which I agree with him on. I want to speak for a moment about the provisions related to health care that are in the budget resolution. There are 53 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, disabled, and elderly citizens who rely on Medicaid for their well- being and their livelihood. And there are 45 million Americans without health insurance coverage in this country, including over 400,000 in my home State of New Mexico. The administration offered a budget proposal to us that added $140 billion for health care spending. Even with the proposed reductions in Medicaid spending, which they also recommended, the President was proposing a net increase of $80 billion for health care. In contrast to that proposal, the budget before us tonight provides no spending for the uninsured and provides a cut in Medicaid of $10 billion over 4 years. This is even more of a cut in Medicaid than what the administration effectively proposed because the administration's budget proposal only got a scored savings of $7.6 billion in Medicaid over 5 years. So it is $140 billion short of the President's proposal on the uninsured, and the cut for Medicaid is scored at greater than the level of cut that the President's budget called for, according to CBO. In the name of reducing the deficit, this budget actually manages to increase the deficit and still cuts funding for the uninsured and our Nation's most vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled citizens who rely on the Medicaid Program. It is estimated that a cut of $10 billion in Medicaid, as is in this resolution before us, will translate to almost $100 million in Medicaid cuts to my State of New Mexico over the next 4 years. The Medicaid Program in New Mexico is already more efficient and less expensive than private sector health care, and it has been cut repeatedly over the last few years as the State tried to address declining revenues and growing needs. There is no doubt that any Federal reductions in Medicaid dollars to my State of New Mexico will translate into a reduction in services, a reduction in benefits, and a reduction in coverage for our State's most vulnerable citizens. Governor Richardson is a great Governor, but he cannot magically produce the $100 million that the Federal Government would cut from our State under this budget proposal. Despite assertions that cutting $10 billion from Medicaid will have no impact on the health and well-being of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, even the best circus elephant or donkey cannot pull off such a feat. Furthermore, Medicaid is far from broken, as some have claimed. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent from 2000 to 2004. That compares to just over 7 percent in Medicare and 12.6 percent in monthly premiums for employer-sponsored insurance. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare. The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. While nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net health program. Consequently, Medicaid now provides care to 53 million low-income Americans, including nearly one-quarter of all New Mexicans. For these reasons and many others, I cannot support the budget resolution before us today. I would like to emphasize, however, that things would have been far worse if not for the hard work and leadership of Senator Smith, with whom I offered an amendment to the Senate budget resolution that completely eliminated the $15 billion in planned cuts to Medicaid. Senator Smith has shown a dedication and understanding of the Medicaid program and its importance to the 53 million Americans that it serves that should be applauded. Due to his dedication, we have a budget before us that has $10 billion in Medicaid cuts. But it is certainly far better than the $15 billion in the original Senate budget resolution or the $20 to $38 billion in the original House budget resolution or the $60 billion originally proposed by the President. I also commend every single Democratic Senator for, first, signing a letter to President Bush opposing block grants or arbitrary caps or limits on Medicaid spending to the States earlier this year and for voting unanimously to eliminate any Medicaid cuts to the budget resolution. I also thank the more than 200 national organizations that supported the Smith-Bingaman amendment to the Senate budget resolution and urge them to stay active over the coming months to continue to oppose Medicaid cuts. Before closing, I would like to strongly express the need to undertake any reform or changes to Medicaid on a bipartisan basis. Senator Smith and I, along with a majority of the Senate and an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives, have all voted in favor of the creation of an independent, bipartisan Medicaid Commission. Why a commission? Just like Social Security, just like the 9/11 Commission which examined the intelligence system, and just like Medicare, we believe that Medicaid deserves a comprehensive and thorough examination of what is working and what is not by all stakeholders--Federal officials, State and local government officials, providers, consumer representatives, and experts. If the Congress fails to accede to the majority sentiment in both the Senate and House and pass S. 338, the Bipartisan Medicaid Commission Act of 2005, then Senators Smith and I, on a bipartisan basis, believe that we should have the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, or IOM, undertake such a review of Medicaid. Medicaid is 40 years old this year and deserves a thorough review from top to bottom by an independent, bipartisan, and well-respected group such as the IOM. The purpose of such a commission would be to report on short- and long-range recommendations to improve coverage and access to care, quality, and cost-effectiveness of services for low- income and vulnerable populations served by the Medicaid program by December 2006. The 53 million Americans served by Medicaid deserve nothing less. I would point out that, in response to questions from Finance Committee Chairman Grassley earlier this year on FDA drug safety issues, Secretary Leavitt referred repeatedly to the ``prestigious IOM'' and how it was studying FDA drug safety issues and added that ``we should move carefully before undertaking any restructuring, and look forward to reviewing the results of the IOM study looking into these matters, as well as working with FDA, Congress and outside stakeholders to ensure an efficient and effective system of drug regulation.'' Again, the 53 million Americans served by Medicaid deserve no less than a similar review of the Medicaid program. If a commission is appointed, instead, that is heavily weighted toward the administration, it will be nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money, as none of the recommendations will have bipartisan buy-in or balance. Once again, we will have missed an important opportunity to improve the Medicaid program. It is also why I firmly believe we need to make sure that we do whatever we do right rather than quick. Senator Coleman said it well when he said we should ``measure twice and cut once.'' Medicaid is the backstop to Medicare, the backstop to private insurance, and the major funding source for our Nation's safety net providers. Medicaid is, as Health Affairs has called it, ``the glue that holds our nation's health care system together.'' Therefore, we must make sure reform is done right and systematically, rather than quickly and without being thought through. Finally, during the last Presidential election, the President recognized that 9 million children lacked health care coverage and made a proposal that he called ``Cover The Kids.'' In the President's own words: We'll keep our commitment to American's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low- income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need. The President put that proposal into his budget, but I do not see it in this budget. As a nation, we should not be going backwards on children's health, but we will in this budget. Furthermore, Congress is poised to adopt a Federal budget that provides $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest people while, at the same time, it slashes funding for seniors and children who count on Medicaid for their very survival. Consequently, I urge a vote against the conference budget resolution. The votes are going to be here to adopt this budget resolution. I hope this commission we have called for and Senator Smith has insisted upon will be able to give good direction as to how this could be implemented and how Medicaid can be improved long term. Mr. President, with that I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Included in that is a statement by Governor Richardson expressing his strong support for the legislation I am introducing today. Unfortunately, the options that Secretary Leavitt outlined in his response will only provide limited help in alleviating this crisis. It is for that reason that I introduce this emergency funding legislation today. Fundamentally, while AIHC does face a unique situation because the Albuquerque metro area has experienced a significant increase in its urban Indian population from surrounding tribes and individuals from tribes across the Nation, the most significant underlying problem is that the entire Indian Health Service is horribly underfunded. In fact, funding for Native American health care is a national travesty. Over the years, funding for IHS has not kept pace with medical inflation and population growth As a result, IHS services are seriously underfunded, and patients are routinely denied care. For many critical services, patients are subjected to a literal ``life or limb'' test; their care is denied unless their life is threatened or they risk immediate loss of a limb. Care is denied or delayed until their condition worsens and treatment is costlier or, all too often, comes too late to be effective. Federal per capita funding for Indian health is only $1,914, about half the allotment of Federal per capita funding for health care for Federal prisoners. Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson traveled to the Navajo Reservation last year and saw this problem first-hand and vowed to fight for increased funding for tribal health care. Unfortunately, the administration has proposed a rather modest increase of less than 2 percent for IHS in fiscal year 2006. Yet again, IHS funding will not come close to keeping pace with medical inflation which is growing at double-digit levels in the private sector. On a per capita basis, it is even worse because HHS's own budget documents indicate that IHS will have to serve over 29,000 new people. Furthermore, although urban Indians represent around half of all Native Americans in the country, urban Indian health programs receive less than 1 percent of all IHS funding and those funds are literally frozen at $33 million nationwide. This is both unacceptable and unsustainable. In addition to supporting budget and appropriations amendments time- and-time again over the years that unfortunately have failed in Senate votes, including an amendment by Senator Conrad to the budget resolution this year, I successfully offered amendments last session of Congress to the Medicare prescription drug bill to provide Indian Health Service units to get better prices through the contract health services program and to allow IHS to bill for the full array of services in the Medicare program. In the coming weeks, I will also be introducing two pieces of legislation to both improve health services generally for urban Indians and to also improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans in the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. In the short-term, however, we need passage of this critical and urgent legislation to save the health services provided by the Albuquerque Indian Health Center that are being threatened. I urge its immediate passage. I ask for unanimous consent to print a copy of the legislation in the Record.