Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent, and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living in the Albuquerque area. The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About 50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services. However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less than it did just a few years ago. As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees an estimated 120 patients a day. After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize AIHC as their primary care provider. To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban Indians in the region. Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to transfer funding to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem. Congressman Udall and I also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson on ways that we can work together with the State to improve the situation at AIHC. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

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.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent, and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living in the Albuquerque area. The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About 50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services. However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less than it did just a few years ago. As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees an estimated 120 patients a day. After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize AIHC as their primary care provider. To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban Indians in the region. Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to transfer funding to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem. Congressman Udall and I also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson on ways that we can work together with the State to improve the situation at AIHC. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Domenici today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. It is with great pleasure we are today introducing the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2005. The purpose of our bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's leaders in bridge research and I believe worthy of being designated as one of the Nation's university transportation centers. Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network. One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another. Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the new Zakim Charles River Bridge in Boston, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, NM. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, NM, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with almost 49,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges. A little known and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 78,000, or 13 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 states. For example, this chart shows the top ten states with the highest percentage of deficient bridges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of structurally deficient bridges State Number of bridges Number of structurally deficient bridges (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma..................................................... 23,312 7,307 31.3 Rhode Island................................................. 749 193 25.8 Pennsylvania................................................. 22,253 5,464 24.6 Missouri..................................................... 23,791 5,028 21.1 Iowa......................................................... 24,902 5,259 21.1 Mississippi.................................................. 16,838 3,379 20.1 Vermont...................................................... 2,690 484 18.0 South Dakota................................................. 5,961 1,072 18.0 North Dakota................................................. 4,507 803 17.8 Nebraska..................................................... 15,455 2,550 16.5 Michigan..................................................... 10,818 1,764 16.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The source is the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System, December 2004 Florida and Arizona have the lowest percentages of structurally deficient bridges at less than 3 percent each. Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent or rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average costs required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year. Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. Almost one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and over 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,200 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient. I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation. To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. Sensors embedded in the concrete monitor the stresses on the bridge as the weather changes or under the weight of vehicles and show how the materials change with age. The information can then be used by engineers to help design more durable and economical bridges. Eventually NMSU's methods could be used to help design better buildings. In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces and converted it into a ``smart bridge.'' This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. In 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. A third smart bridge, on I10 over University Avenue in Las Cruces, opened in July 2004. In February 2003 I had an opportunity to tour the facilities at NMSU and to see firsthand the fine facilities and work being conducted on bridge technology. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection. I will ask unanimous consent that two recent articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. New Mexico State is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. The university has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition. This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at New Mexico Sate University. The university is widely recognized as national leader in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for NMSU to be recognized as the university technology bridge research center. The bill we are introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I do believe NMSU has earned this honor. The bill mirrors the language for University Transportation Centers in the Senate-passed SAFETEA from the 108th Congress and provides $40 million in funding over 6 years from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the bridge technology center. The Federal Highway Administration has long recognized the quality of the work at NMSU and has provided grants to support their outstanding work. In November 2004, NMSU's bridge center was awarded a $400,000 grant to install fiber-sensors in a new bridge over Interstate 10 in Dona Ana, NM. The sensors will relay information about the effects of stress on the bridge long before any signs of aging are visible. This is the fourth bridge in New Mexico to be equipped with the smart bridge technology. NMSU's Dr. Rola Idriss is the principal investigator of these projects. NMSU's work is also being recognized internationally. Highway departments in Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are experimenting with the smart bridge technology. In October 2004, NMSU's Dr. David Jauregui and Dr. Ken White were invited speakers for the International Conference on Bridge Inspection and Bridge Management in Beijing, China. Dr. White delivered the keynote address for the conference. NMSU is currently developing a memorandum of agreement with the Chinese bridge community to develop a bridge inspection and management training program. Congress has also already recognized the fine work at NMSU. For example, at my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University, $250,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and $125,000 for the current fiscal year. The specific purpose of NMSU's Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the Nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. Improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. Developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. Developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. Providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation. Building on NMSU's research work, the University Technology Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities. The engineers at New Mexico State University have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation. I ask all senators to support the designation of the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I now ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Domenici today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. It is with great pleasure we are today introducing the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2005. The purpose of our bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's leaders in bridge research and I believe worthy of being designated as one of the Nation's university transportation centers. Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network. One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another. Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the new Zakim Charles River Bridge in Boston, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, NM. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, NM, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with almost 49,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges. A little known and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 78,000, or 13 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 states. For example, this chart shows the top ten states with the highest percentage of deficient bridges. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Percent of structurally deficient bridges State Number of bridges Number of structurally deficient bridges (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma..................................................... 23,312 7,307 31.3 Rhode Island................................................. 749 193 25.8 Pennsylvania................................................. 22,253 5,464 24.6 Missouri..................................................... 23,791 5,028 21.1 Iowa......................................................... 24,902 5,259 21.1 Mississippi.................................................. 16,838 3,379 20.1 Vermont...................................................... 2,690 484 18.0 South Dakota................................................. 5,961 1,072 18.0 North Dakota................................................. 4,507 803 17.8 Nebraska..................................................... 15,455 2,550 16.5 Michigan..................................................... 10,818 1,764 16.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The source is the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System, December 2004 Florida and Arizona have the lowest percentages of structurally deficient bridges at less than 3 percent each. Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent or rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average costs required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year. Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. Almost one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and over 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,200 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient. I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation. To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. Sensors embedded in the concrete monitor the stresses on the bridge as the weather changes or under the weight of vehicles and show how the materials change with age. The information can then be used by engineers to help design more durable and economical bridges. Eventually NMSU's methods could be used to help design better buildings. In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces and converted it into a ``smart bridge.'' This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. In 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. A third smart bridge, on I10 over University Avenue in Las Cruces, opened in July 2004. In February 2003 I had an opportunity to tour the facilities at NMSU and to see firsthand the fine facilities and work being conducted on bridge technology. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection. I will ask unanimous consent that two recent articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record at the end of my statement. New Mexico State is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. The university has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition. This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at New Mexico Sate University. The university is widely recognized as national leader in all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for NMSU to be recognized as the university technology bridge research center. The bill we are introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I do believe NMSU has earned this honor. The bill mirrors the language for University Transportation Centers in the Senate-passed SAFETEA from the 108th Congress and provides $40 million in funding over 6 years from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the bridge technology center. The Federal Highway Administration has long recognized the quality of the work at NMSU and has provided grants to support their outstanding work. In November 2004, NMSU's bridge center was awarded a $400,000 grant to install fiber-sensors in a new bridge over Interstate 10 in Dona Ana, NM. The sensors will relay information about the effects of stress on the bridge long before any signs of aging are visible. This is the fourth bridge in New Mexico to be equipped with the smart bridge technology. NMSU's Dr. Rola Idriss is the principal investigator of these projects. NMSU's work is also being recognized internationally. Highway departments in Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are experimenting with the smart bridge technology. In October 2004, NMSU's Dr. David Jauregui and Dr. Ken White were invited speakers for the International Conference on Bridge Inspection and Bridge Management in Beijing, China. Dr. White delivered the keynote address for the conference. NMSU is currently developing a memorandum of agreement with the Chinese bridge community to develop a bridge inspection and management training program. Congress has also already recognized the fine work at NMSU. For example, at my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University, $250,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and $125,000 for the current fiscal year. The specific purpose of NMSU's Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the Nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. Improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. Developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. Developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. Providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation. Building on NMSU's research work, the University Technology Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities. The engineers at New Mexico State University have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation. I ask all senators to support the designation of the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill. I now ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Save More for Retirement Act of 2005 with my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman and Senator Obama. This legislation is designed to achieve two important savings goals. First, it will encourage workers who are not currently participating in their employer's retirement plan to do so. Second, it will encourage workers who are currently investing in 40l(k) plans to save even more. At a time when national savings is at a near all-time low, Congress needs to look at ways to expand retirement savings, particularly savings garnered through an employer-provided retirement plan. This legislation is a commonsense approach that is based on research undertaken and compiled by a host of retirement policy experts from both academia and business. It is imperative that the Congress continues to look for new and innovative ways to help workers save for their retirement through the existing employer- provided plan system. This legislation accomplishes that goal by creating incentives for employers to modify their existing plans to add features that have been proven to increase savings. The first step is to encourage employers to add a feature to its 40l(k) or similar plans to enroll its employees in the plan upon being hired unless the employee notifies the employer that he or she does not want to participate in the plan. The decision to participate still rests entirely with the employees, as they can opt out before participation begins or at any time afterward. Although some employers do offer these types of plans now, most maintain a more traditional structure under which the employee must opt into participating. Studies have indicated that such a seemingly minor change in how employees are enrolled can dramatically increase participation rates. It has been reported that one large company experienced an increase in employee participation in their retirement plan of 50 percent once the features were changed to automatically enroll its employees. Clearly the first step towards increasing our national savings rate is to get more people saving. Obviously the second step is to get those who are saving to set aside even more for their retirement years. For this reason, the legislation would encourage plans to add a feature that increases employees' contributions annually until it reaches at least 10 percent of the employees' compensation. Again, studies have repeatedly demonstrated that people are more likely to agree to save more in the future than they currently do. It has also been demonstrated that people are more likely to agree to save more in the future if they make the decision today and do not wait until future years to make that decision. In our legislation, the employee can stop a future increase or change the contribution rate. The employer has the discretion to tie these automatic increases to either an annual increase or to increases in salary or compensation. This is closely modeled on the Save More Tomorrow, SMarT, plan advocated by Shlomo Benartzi from UCLA and Richard Thaler from the University of Chicago. These behavioral finance experts claim that although participants in this plan may start saving at a lower rate--3.5 percent--than the average, within 4 years increases averaged 13.6 percent--a greater than 10 percent increase. Compared to the control group saving rate of slightly more than 8 percent of their compensation, the end result is quite extraordinary. To encourage employers to make these two changes to the plan, the legislation creates a new safe harbor that, if all the criteria are met, treats the plan as being nondiscriminatory. In order to qualify for the safe harbor, the employer must provide either a nonelective match of 3 percent of the employee's compensation or an elective match of 50 percent of the first 7 percent of the employee's compensation. These criteria can be met also if the employer contributes a comparable amount to another qualified plan for the same employees. The employer must also allow its contributions to vest in either 2 years, if the employer enrolls the employees in its pension plan before the employees' first paycheck, or in 1 year if the employer enrolls the employees within the first quarter of being hired. It is important to note that both of these vesting periods are shorter than current law allows and are comparable to what employers can do under the existing safe harbor. Finally, in an effort to help ensure employees are invested wisely, the legislation directs the Department of Labor to provide guidance for employers in selecting ``default'' investments so that employers have options besides money market accounts and investment contracts. A default investment is the investment that is made when employees fail to indicate how they would like their retirement savings invested. Due to liability concerns, retirement plans tend to invest these funds in either investment contracts or money market accounts. The benefit of compounding interest that would occur with even modest returns in broad-based funds that have an equity component is lost. This guidance will not allow employers to make default investment decisions that are risky or put the employee's retirement at risk. It is important to note that the employee always retains the ability to invest the funds differently in other investment options offered by the plan if they do not like the default investment offered by the employer. I thank all of those who have done considerable research into the impact of human behavior on savings, which was quite instrumental to the drafting of this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with them and others interested in this new approach to addressing our Nation's savings problems. 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 the Save More for Retirement Act of 2005 with my colleagues Senator Snowe, Senator Lieberman and Senator Obama. This legislation is designed to achieve two important savings goals. First, it will encourage workers who are not currently participating in their employer's retirement plan to do so. Second, it will encourage workers who are currently investing in 40l(k) plans to save even more. At a time when national savings is at a near all-time low, Congress needs to look at ways to expand retirement savings, particularly savings garnered through an employer-provided retirement plan. This legislation is a commonsense approach that is based on research undertaken and compiled by a host of retirement policy experts from both academia and business. It is imperative that the Congress continues to look for new and innovative ways to help workers save for their retirement through the existing employer- provided plan system. This legislation accomplishes that goal by creating incentives for employers to modify their existing plans to add features that have been proven to increase savings. The first step is to encourage employers to add a feature to its 40l(k) or similar plans to enroll its employees in the plan upon being hired unless the employee notifies the employer that he or she does not want to participate in the plan. The decision to participate still rests entirely with the employees, as they can opt out before participation begins or at any time afterward. Although some employers do offer these types of plans now, most maintain a more traditional structure under which the employee must opt into participating. Studies have indicated that such a seemingly minor change in how employees are enrolled can dramatically increase participation rates. It has been reported that one large company experienced an increase in employee participation in their retirement plan of 50 percent once the features were changed to automatically enroll its employees. Clearly the first step towards increasing our national savings rate is to get more people saving. Obviously the second step is to get those who are saving to set aside even more for their retirement years. For this reason, the legislation would encourage plans to add a feature that increases employees' contributions annually until it reaches at least 10 percent of the employees' compensation. Again, studies have repeatedly demonstrated that people are more likely to agree to save more in the future than they currently do. It has also been demonstrated that people are more likely to agree to save more in the future if they make the decision today and do not wait until future years to make that decision. In our legislation, the employee can stop a future increase or change the contribution rate. The employer has the discretion to tie these automatic increases to either an annual increase or to increases in salary or compensation. This is closely modeled on the Save More Tomorrow, SMarT, plan advocated by Shlomo Benartzi from UCLA and Richard Thaler from the University of Chicago. These behavioral finance experts claim that although participants in this plan may start saving at a lower rate--3.5 percent--than the average, within 4 years increases averaged 13.6 percent--a greater than 10 percent increase. Compared to the control group saving rate of slightly more than 8 percent of their compensation, the end result is quite extraordinary. To encourage employers to make these two changes to the plan, the legislation creates a new safe harbor that, if all the criteria are met, treats the plan as being nondiscriminatory. In order to qualify for the safe harbor, the employer must provide either a nonelective match of 3 percent of the employee's compensation or an elective match of 50 percent of the first 7 percent of the employee's compensation. These criteria can be met also if the employer contributes a comparable amount to another qualified plan for the same employees. The employer must also allow its contributions to vest in either 2 years, if the employer enrolls the employees in its pension plan before the employees' first paycheck, or in 1 year if the employer enrolls the employees within the first quarter of being hired. It is important to note that both of these vesting periods are shorter than current law allows and are comparable to what employers can do under the existing safe harbor. Finally, in an effort to help ensure employees are invested wisely, the legislation directs the Department of Labor to provide guidance for employers in selecting ``default'' investments so that employers have options besides money market accounts and investment contracts. A default investment is the investment that is made when employees fail to indicate how they would like their retirement savings invested. Due to liability concerns, retirement plans tend to invest these funds in either investment contracts or money market accounts. The benefit of compounding interest that would occur with even modest returns in broad-based funds that have an equity component is lost. This guidance will not allow employers to make default investment decisions that are risky or put the employee's retirement at risk. It is important to note that the employee always retains the ability to invest the funds differently in other investment options offered by the plan if they do not like the default investment offered by the employer. I thank all of those who have done considerable research into the impact of human behavior on savings, which was quite instrumental to the drafting of this legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with them and others interested in this new approach to addressing our Nation's savings problems. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on Monday, April 18, 2005, I introduced S. 832, the Taxpayer Protection and Assistance Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record explanatory language to accompany that legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague, the Senator from Louisiana. Amendment No. 483, as modified Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside and that amendment No. 483 be called up.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send a modification to the amendment to the desk and ask that it be considered.

Mr. BINGAMAN. No. 483.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this modification would provide that instead of the $60 million that is in the bill now for the operation of our Federal courts, there would be $65 million, and that the additional funding could be used for both responding to recent Supreme Court decisions, responding to recently enacted legislation, and responding to the increased immigration-related filings in the Federal court. This is a good amendment. It is one that is important, particularly for the States where these immigration-related filings are happening. I believe this is an acceptable amendment to both sides, and I urge my colleagues to support it. I believe it can be agreed to on a voice vote.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 414, As Modified

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have two amendments to offer, and it will take a total of about 3 minutes. I do not expect votes on them today, of course, but I would like a chance to very briefly offer them, and then have them set aside, if I can do that after the Senator from Oregon concludes his remarks and before the rest of the debate continues.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Is there an amendment pending?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set that aside so I can call up an amendment numbered 483.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide an additional $5 million for the U.S. district courts along our southwest border with Mexico. Due to the increased immigration enforcement efforts along that border, southwest border courts have seen an extraordinary increase in immigration-related filings. This amendment would help border courts cover those expenses as we continue allocating resources to secure our Nation's borders. Since 1995, immigration cases in the five southwest border districts--that is, the District of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Southern District of California, and the Southern and Western Districts of Texas--have grown approximately 828 percent. In 2003, overall immigration filings in all U.S. district courts surged 22 percent. In 2004, they jumped 11 percent. Of those cases, 69 percent of them came from these five districts I have listed. In recent years, Congress has appropriated millions of dollars to hire additional Border Patrol officers. Obviously, the more Border Patrol officers you have, the more cases you have coming into the Federal district courts. We need to recognize this. We need to recognize the enormous impact this is having on our courts in this part of the country. This amendment would add an additional $5 million to southwest border courts to the existing $60 million that is currently allocated under the supplemental to cover expenses related to recent Supreme Court decisions and the class action bill. The Administrative Office of the Courts should be free to allocate the funds as it deems necessary among the various courts. I hope my colleagues will support that amendment. Amendment No. 417 At this point I ask that amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 417, the Grassley-Baucus amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is an amendment I am offering on behalf of Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and myself. It would provide an additional $2 million in funding to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative for the balance of the current fiscal year. The reasons for the amendment are straightforward. As many of us have heard, because of the lack of funding, the Office of the Trade Representative has been forced to eliminate a substantial portion of its foreign travel. It has placed a freeze on all its hiring. It is essentially no longer able to do the job we are requiring it to do. In my opinion, the U.S. Trade Representative's Office is chronically underfunded and understaffed as it is. It is the principal agency in charge of negotiating and enforcing our trade agreements, and it certainly deserves our support, particularly in this time of unprecedented trade imbalances. We talk a lot about holding our partners to their obligations in trade agreements. We talk about protecting U.S. jobs. Unfortunately, we have not dedicated a proper amount of resources to this effort. This fiscal year, the Trade Representative's Office has faced unexpected additional constraints as a result of the WTO Ministerial, travel related to enforcement, the need for more staff to pursue congressionally mandated enforcement actions, and substantial fluctuations in the exchange rate, almost all of which fluctuations, I would point out, have been adverse to the dollar. This amendment will provide the Trade Representative's Office with the emergency funding needed to get through this fiscal year. It is an investment well worth making. It will add to U.S. competitiveness and economic security. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. I ask that amendment be set aside and the earlier amendment by Senator Chambliss be brought up again.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address the devastating health workforce shortages we will be facing in this country. Health care expenditures represent 15.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. These expenditures are expected to rise to l8.7 percent by 2014. As health care needs grow, society faces increasing challenges related to the health care workforce. By 2020, 29 percent nursing positions are projected to be vacant. From 2000-2010, an additional 1.2 million aides will be needed to cover projected growth in long-term care positions and replacement of departing workers. An aging health care workforce means that by 2008, almost half of the workforce will be 45 years of age and older. Currently, U.S. providers rely on international medical graduate and foreign trained nurses to fill some critical roles, while continuing to face a shortage of providers in health professional shortage areas. Health workforce challenges need to analyzed, understood, and alleviated, to ensure better access and better quality of care. The Health Workforce Advisory Commission Act of 2005 will help to create a national vision to serve as a roadmap for investing in the health workforce. Through analysis and recommendation, an 18 member commission of national workforce and health experts will provide insight regarding the solutions necessary to enhance our health workforce. Key areas for commission focus will include forecasting of supply and distribution of physicians, nurses and other health professionals, studying the national and global impact of workforce policies related to the utilization of internationally trained practitioners, and developing appropriate measures to ensure diversity of the U.S. health workforce. The commission will make recommendations to Congress on health workforce policy. It is vital that the U.S. take new measures to ensure that workforce challenges are met and overcome for current and future generations. By undertaking and overcoming the challenges before us, we will enhance both the quality of healthcare and the quality of life, provide access nationwide, and build a health care system that is consistent with our current and future health and economic needs. The Health Workforce Advisory Commission can serve a new and integral role for our health care system and our society, now and in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will help address the devastating health workforce shortages we will be facing in this country. Health care expenditures represent 15.3 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. These expenditures are expected to rise to l8.7 percent by 2014. As health care needs grow, society faces increasing challenges related to the health care workforce. By 2020, 29 percent nursing positions are projected to be vacant. From 2000-2010, an additional 1.2 million aides will be needed to cover projected growth in long-term care positions and replacement of departing workers. An aging health care workforce means that by 2008, almost half of the workforce will be 45 years of age and older. Currently, U.S. providers rely on international medical graduate and foreign trained nurses to fill some critical roles, while continuing to face a shortage of providers in health professional shortage areas. Health workforce challenges need to analyzed, understood, and alleviated, to ensure better access and better quality of care. The Health Workforce Advisory Commission Act of 2005 will help to create a national vision to serve as a roadmap for investing in the health workforce. Through analysis and recommendation, an 18 member commission of national workforce and health experts will provide insight regarding the solutions necessary to enhance our health workforce. Key areas for commission focus will include forecasting of supply and distribution of physicians, nurses and other health professionals, studying the national and global impact of workforce policies related to the utilization of internationally trained practitioners, and developing appropriate measures to ensure diversity of the U.S. health workforce. The commission will make recommendations to Congress on health workforce policy. It is vital that the U.S. take new measures to ensure that workforce challenges are met and overcome for current and future generations. By undertaking and overcoming the challenges before us, we will enhance both the quality of healthcare and the quality of life, provide access nationwide, and build a health care system that is consistent with our current and future health and economic needs. The Health Workforce Advisory Commission can serve a new and integral role for our health care system and our society, now and in the future. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.