Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, Lincoln, Murray, Kerry, Cantwell, Kohl, Lautenberg, Boxer and Corzine. This legislation, entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2005,'' would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and to newborns through the first full year of life. Today is World Health Day 2005 and the message this year is ``Make Every Mother and Child Count''. I can think of no better way to honor our Nation's mothers and children than to increase their access to health care services and improve their overall health. According to a recent report by Save the Children entitled ``The State of the World's Mothers,'' the United States fares no better than 11th in the world. Why is this? According to the report, ``The United States earned its 11th place rank this year based on several factors: One of the key indicators used to calculate the well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality. . . . Canada, Australia, and all the Western and Northern European countries in the study performed better than the United States in this indicator.'' The study adds, ``Similarly, the United States did not do as well as the top 10 countries with regard to infant mortality rates.'' In fact, the United States ranks 21st in maternal mortality and 28th in infant mortality, the worst among developed nations. We should and must do better by our Nation's mothers and infants. There has been long-standing policy in this country linking programs for pregnant women to programs for infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Yet the CHIP program, unfortunately, fails to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that newborns eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, often miss having comprehensive prenatal care and care during those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed. By expanding coverage to pregnant women through CHIP, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine has written, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.'' Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care in 2003. The result is often quite costly--both in terms of the health of the mother and newborn but also in terms of the long-term expenses for society since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems. In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' In addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage to pregnant women is cost effective. The ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' also eliminates the unintended federal policy through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cuts off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Certainly, everybody can agree that the government should not be telling women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager. This bipartisan legislation has been supported in the past by: the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the What to Expect Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities USA, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Society for Maternal- Fetal Medicine, and Families USA. This legislation is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in 2001 and 2003. Throughout 2001, the Administration made numerous statements in support of the passage of this type of legislation, but unfortunately, reversed course in October 2002 after publishing a regulation allowing states to redefine a ``child'' as an ``unborn child'' only and to provide prenatal care, but not postnatal care through CHIP in that manner. In a letter to Senator Nickles dated October 8, 2002, Secretary Thompson argued, ``I believe the regulation is a more effective and comprehensive solution to this issue.'' While a number of senators strongly disagreed with Secretary Thompson's assertion and sent him letters to that effect on October 10, 2002, and on October 23, 2002, we felt it was important to get the testimony of our nation's medical experts on the health and well-being of both pregnant women and newborns. We called for a hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on October 24, 2002. Witnesses included representatives from the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the What to Expect Foundation. They were asked to compare the regulation to the legislation and I will let their testimony speak for itself. Dr. Nancy Green testified on behalf of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. She said: We support giving states the flexibility they need to cover income-eligible pregnant women age 19 and older, and to automatically enroll infants born to SCHIP-eligible mothers. By establishing a uniform eligibility threshold for coverage for pregnant women and infants, states will be able to improve maternal health, eliminate waiting periods for infants and streamline administration of publicly supported health programs. Currently, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Governors' Association, 36 states and the District of Columbia have income eligibility thresholds that are more restrictive for women than for their newborns. Encouraging states to eliminate this disparity by allowing them to establish a uniform eligibility threshold for pregnant women and their infants should be a national policy priority. Dr. Green adds: Specifically, we are deeply concerned that final regulation fails to provide to the mother the standard scope of maternity care services recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Of particular concern, the regulation explicitly states that postpartum care is not covered and, therefore, federal reimbursement will not be available for these services. In addition, because of the contentious collateral issues raised by this regulation groups like the March of Dimes will find it even more difficult to work in the states to generate support for legislation to extend coverage to uninsured pregnant women. Dr. Laura Riley testified on behalf of ACOG. In her testimony, she stated: ACOG is very concerned that mothers will not have access to postpartum services under the regulation. The rule clearly states that ``. . . care after delivery, such as postpartum services could not be covered as part of the Title XXI State Plan . . . because they are not services for an eligible child. On the importance of postpartum care, Dr. Riley adds: When new mothers develop postpartum complications, quick access to their physicians is absolutely critical. Postpartum care is especially important for women who have preexisting medical conditions, and for those whose medical conditions were induced by their pregnancies, such as gestational diabetes or hypertension, and for whom it is necessary to ensure that their conditions are stabilized and treated. As a result, Dr. Riley concludes: Limiting coverage to the fetus instead of the mother omits a critical component of postpartum care that physicians regard as essential for the health of the mother and the child. Covering the fetus as opposed to the mother also raises questions of whether certain services will be available during pregnancy and labor if the condition is one that directly affects the woman. The best way to address this coverage issue is to pass S. 724, supported by Senators Bond, Bingaman and Lincoln and many others, and which provides a full range of medical services during and after pregnancy directly to the pregnant woman. Dr. Richard Bucciarelli testified on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said: Recently, the Administration published a final rule expanding SCHIP to cover unborn children. The Academy is concerned that, as written, this regulation falls dangerously short of the clinical standards of care outlined in our guidelines, which describe the importance of covering all stages of a birth--pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care. It is important to note that the regulation subtracts the time that an ``unborn child'' is covered from the period of continuously eligibility after birth. Consequently, children would be denied insurance coverage at very critical points during the first full year of life. As such, Dr. Bucciarelli expressed support for the legislation over the regulation because it, in his words: . . . takes an important step to decrease the number of uninsured children by providing 12 months of continuous eligibility for those children born . . . This legislation ensures that children born to women enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP are immediately enrolled in the program for which they are eligible. Additionally, this provision prevents newborns eligible for SCHIP from being subject to enrollment waiting periods, ensuring that infants receive appropriate health care in their first year of life. And finally, Lisa Bernstein testified as Executive Director of The What to Expect Foundation, which takes its name from the bestselling What to Expect pregnancy and parenting series that has helped over 20 million families from pregnancy through their child's toddler years. Ms. Bernstein also supported the legislation as a far superior option over the regulation and make this simple but eloquent point: . . . only a healthy parent can provide a healthy future for a healthy child. The testimony of these experts speaks for itself and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation with Senators Lugar, Lincoln, Murray, Kerry, Cantwell, Kohl, Lautenberg, Boxer and Corzine. This legislation, entitled the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act of 2005,'' would significantly reduce the number of uninsured pregnant women and newborns by expanding coverage to pregnant women through Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, and to newborns through the first full year of life. Today is World Health Day 2005 and the message this year is ``Make Every Mother and Child Count''. I can think of no better way to honor our Nation's mothers and children than to increase their access to health care services and improve their overall health. According to a recent report by Save the Children entitled ``The State of the World's Mothers,'' the United States fares no better than 11th in the world. Why is this? According to the report, ``The United States earned its 11th place rank this year based on several factors: One of the key indicators used to calculate the well-being for mothers is lifetime risk of maternal mortality. . . . Canada, Australia, and all the Western and Northern European countries in the study performed better than the United States in this indicator.'' The study adds, ``Similarly, the United States did not do as well as the top 10 countries with regard to infant mortality rates.'' In fact, the United States ranks 21st in maternal mortality and 28th in infant mortality, the worst among developed nations. We should and must do better by our Nation's mothers and infants. There has been long-standing policy in this country linking programs for pregnant women to programs for infants, including Medicaid, WIC, and the Maternal and Child Health Block Grant. Yet the CHIP program, unfortunately, fails to provide coverage to pregnant women beyond the age of 18. As a result, it is more likely that newborns eligible for CHIP are not covered from the moment of birth, and therefore, often miss having comprehensive prenatal care and care during those first critical months of life until their CHIP application is processed. By expanding coverage to pregnant women through CHIP, the ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' recognizes the importance of prenatal care to the health and development of a child. As Dr. Alan Waxman of the University of New Mexico School of Medicine has written, ``Prenatal care is an important factor in the prevention of birth defects and the prevention of prematurity, the most common causes of infant death and disability. Babies born to women with no prenatal care or late prenatal care are nearly twice as likely to [be] low birthweight or very low birthweight as infants born to women who received early prenatal care.'' Unfortunately, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, New Mexico ranked worst in the nation in the percentage of mothers receiving late or no prenatal care in 2003. The result is often quite costly--both in terms of the health of the mother and newborn but also in terms of the long-term expenses for society since the result can be chronic, lifelong health problems. In fact, according to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, ``four of the top 10 most expensive conditions in the hospital are related to care of infants with complications (respiratory distress, prematurity, heart defects, and lack of oxygen).'' In addition to reduced infant mortality and morbidity, the provision to expand coverage to pregnant women is cost effective. The ``Start Healthy, Stay Healthy Act'' also eliminates the unintended federal policy through CHIP that covers pregnant women only through the age of 18 and cuts off that coverage once the women turn 19 years of age. Certainly, everybody can agree that the government should not be telling women that they are more likely to receive prenatal care coverage only if they become pregnant as a teenager. This bipartisan legislation has been supported in the past by: the March of Dimes, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the What to Expect Foundation, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the National Association of Community Health Centers, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the Federation of American Health Systems, the National Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, Premier, Catholic Health Association, Catholic Charities USA, Family Voices, the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, the National Health Law Program, the National Association of Social Workers, Every Child By Two, the United Cerebral Palsy Associations, the Society for Maternal- Fetal Medicine, and Families USA. This legislation is a reintroduction of a bill that was introduced in 2001 and 2003. Throughout 2001, the Administration made numerous statements in support of the passage of this type of legislation, but unfortunately, reversed course in October 2002 after publishing a regulation allowing states to redefine a ``child'' as an ``unborn child'' only and to provide prenatal care, but not postnatal care through CHIP in that manner. In a letter to Senator Nickles dated October 8, 2002, Secretary Thompson argued, ``I believe the regulation is a more effective and comprehensive solution to this issue.'' While a number of senators strongly disagreed with Secretary Thompson's assertion and sent him letters to that effect on October 10, 2002, and on October 23, 2002, we felt it was important to get the testimony of our nation's medical experts on the health and well-being of both pregnant women and newborns. We called for a hearing in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on October 24, 2002. Witnesses included representatives from the March of Dimes, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the What to Expect Foundation. They were asked to compare the regulation to the legislation and I will let their testimony speak for itself. Dr. Nancy Green testified on behalf of the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation. She said: We support giving states the flexibility they need to cover income-eligible pregnant women age 19 and older, and to automatically enroll infants born to SCHIP-eligible mothers. By establishing a uniform eligibility threshold for coverage for pregnant women and infants, states will be able to improve maternal health, eliminate waiting periods for infants and streamline administration of publicly supported health programs. Currently, according to the Department of Health and Human Services' Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the National Governors' Association, 36 states and the District of Columbia have income eligibility thresholds that are more restrictive for women than for their newborns. Encouraging states to eliminate this disparity by allowing them to establish a uniform eligibility threshold for pregnant women and their infants should be a national policy priority. Dr. Green adds: Specifically, we are deeply concerned that final regulation fails to provide to the mother the standard scope of maternity care services recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). Of particular concern, the regulation explicitly states that postpartum care is not covered and, therefore, federal reimbursement will not be available for these services. In addition, because of the contentious collateral issues raised by this regulation groups like the March of Dimes will find it even more difficult to work in the states to generate support for legislation to extend coverage to uninsured pregnant women. Dr. Laura Riley testified on behalf of ACOG. In her testimony, she stated: ACOG is very concerned that mothers will not have access to postpartum services under the regulation. The rule clearly states that ``. . . care after delivery, such as postpartum services could not be covered as part of the Title XXI State Plan . . . because they are not services for an eligible child. On the importance of postpartum care, Dr. Riley adds: When new mothers develop postpartum complications, quick access to their physicians is absolutely critical. Postpartum care is especially important for women who have preexisting medical conditions, and for those whose medical conditions were induced by their pregnancies, such as gestational diabetes or hypertension, and for whom it is necessary to ensure that their conditions are stabilized and treated. As a result, Dr. Riley concludes: Limiting coverage to the fetus instead of the mother omits a critical component of postpartum care that physicians regard as essential for the health of the mother and the child. Covering the fetus as opposed to the mother also raises questions of whether certain services will be available during pregnancy and labor if the condition is one that directly affects the woman. The best way to address this coverage issue is to pass S. 724, supported by Senators Bond, Bingaman and Lincoln and many others, and which provides a full range of medical services during and after pregnancy directly to the pregnant woman. Dr. Richard Bucciarelli testified on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He said: Recently, the Administration published a final rule expanding SCHIP to cover unborn children. The Academy is concerned that, as written, this regulation falls dangerously short of the clinical standards of care outlined in our guidelines, which describe the importance of covering all stages of a birth--pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum care. It is important to note that the regulation subtracts the time that an ``unborn child'' is covered from the period of continuously eligibility after birth. Consequently, children would be denied insurance coverage at very critical points during the first full year of life. As such, Dr. Bucciarelli expressed support for the legislation over the regulation because it, in his words: . . . takes an important step to decrease the number of uninsured children by providing 12 months of continuous eligibility for those children born . . . This legislation ensures that children born to women enrolled in Medicaid or SCHIP are immediately enrolled in the program for which they are eligible. Additionally, this provision prevents newborns eligible for SCHIP from being subject to enrollment waiting periods, ensuring that infants receive appropriate health care in their first year of life. And finally, Lisa Bernstein testified as Executive Director of The What to Expect Foundation, which takes its name from the bestselling What to Expect pregnancy and parenting series that has helped over 20 million families from pregnancy through their child's toddler years. Ms. Bernstein also supported the legislation as a far superior option over the regulation and make this simple but eloquent point: . . . only a healthy parent can provide a healthy future for a healthy child. The testimony of these experts speaks for itself and I urge my colleagues to pass this legislation as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Thomas, and I along with Senator Isakson are re-introducing the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2005.'' This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces self-employed workers to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to pay for their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the uninsured are growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step. Under current law, the self-employed are allowed an income tax deduction for the amount they pay for health insurance, but must still calculate their payroll taxes as if they were not allowed this income tax deduction. The result is that the self-employed are paying payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. As previously stated, larger businesses do not include pay payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow the self-employed to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 74,000 self-employed workers in New Mexico. While we have no idea how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.6 million working families in the United States paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spend more than $9,000 per year to provide health insurance for their family. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent tax on their premiums resulting in almost $1,400 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to correct it is supported by a variety of groups including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Legislative Council. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I want to thank the Senator from Oklahoma for raising this issue, and I will ask the Budget Committee staff to look into the scoring of the ESPC program with an eye towards accounting for the mandatory savings and thus resolving the matter. it/p4p reserve fund

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to come to the floor today to express my gratitude to J. Paul Taylor--a man of great passion for his wife and children, art and culture, education, border health, progressive politics, and last but definitely not least, improving the economic, social, and spiritual well-being of the people in the Mesilla Valley in southern New Mexico. J. Paul Taylor has touched the lives of so many of the people throughout our great State of New Mexico, but what is most remarkable is that he has done so in so many different facets of life. News articles about him have never really captured but one small piece of his life, as they focus on: J. Paul Taylor: The Artist; J. Paul Taylor: The Historian; J. Paul Taylor: The Educator; J. Paul Taylor: The Politician; J. Paul Taylor: The Father of Border Health; J. Paul Taylor: The Advocate for the Poor; J. Paul Taylor: Children's Advocate. Only J. Paul Taylor could be honored in the wide array of ways he has, including having New Mexico State University establish the J. Paul Taylor Endowment in the College of Education, the New Mexico Human Needs Coordinating Council establishing the J. Paul Taylor Legislative Champion Award to honor other legislators, the New Mexico Library Association naming him a ``New Mexico Library Treasure,'' getting the Lifetime Achievement Award with his wife from the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, receiving the Voice for Children Award from the New Mexico Voices for Children, and the awards go on and on. Representative Taylor was recently honored by his legislative colleagues in the New Mexico Roundhouse, both Democrats and Republicans. As the Las Cruces Sun-News reported, ``Taylor was described as `the great gentleman of New Mexico politics,' and `a populist advocate for the poor and disenfranchised.' He was also lauded for his effort to create the Office of Childhood Development and for the donation of his home in Mesilla, to be converted into a museum following the death of Taylor and his wife, Mary.'' Earlier this month, J. Paul Taylor was unanimously confirmed as a member of the New Mexico National Hispanic Cultural Center and the awards and recognitions just keep on coming. I am so pleased to have worked closely with J. Paul Taylor for the good of New Mexico and the people of the Mesilla Valley throughout my career and think words are impossible to express my gratitude to him for all that he has done for the people of New Mexico. He embodies the very best of our State--its culture and its heart and soul.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Thomas, and I along with Senator Isakson are re-introducing the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2005.'' This important legislation corrects an inequity that currently exists in our tax code that forces self-employed workers to pay payroll taxes on the funds used to pay for their health insurance while larger businesses do not. Because of this inequity, health insurance is more expensive for the self-employed. At a time when the uninsured are growing at an alarming rate, we need to find ways to reduce the cost of health insurance. This legislation is a first logical step. Under current law, the self-employed are allowed an income tax deduction for the amount they pay for health insurance, but must still calculate their payroll taxes as if they were not allowed this income tax deduction. The result is that the self-employed are paying payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. As previously stated, larger businesses do not include pay payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow the self-employed to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 74,000 self-employed workers in New Mexico. While we have no idea how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.6 million working families in the United States paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spend more than $9,000 per year to provide health insurance for their family. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent tax on their premiums resulting in almost $1,400 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and our legislation to correct it is supported by a variety of groups including the National Association for the Self-Employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Legislative Council. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me once again do what I did last evening, and that is commend Senator Smith for his leadership on this important issue. This is a very important test of what our priorities are and also whether we are essentially going to try to take advantage of those we think are less organized to resist. There are a lot of ways we can save money in health care costs that the Federal Government underwrites. In fact, I have an amendment I am going to be offering later on today where I will propose some significant cuts, substantially more than we are talking about here, that can be saved in Medicare because I believe we should look at health care as an area where we need to constrain the growth in costs. But the problem is this budget does not do anything about Medicare. This budget particularly does not do anything about the enormous growth in the cost of Medicare as a result of last year's prescription drug bill. There are a lot of provisions in that bill which clearly overfund health maintenance organizations, HMOs, provide a slush fund to be used by the Secretary of Health and Human Resources. There is an enormous amount of money sloshing around in that legislation, but there is no effort in the budget to get at any of that. Instead, we have said, let's go after $15 billion of cuts in the areas that affect these less organized lobbies, these less organized groups, these groups that are not going to speak up so strongly and resist the cuts. That is why Senator Smith's initiative is so important. That is why it is so important that we have a national commission to give us recommendations as to how we can intelligently save money in health care costs in future years. There are ways that we can better coordinate health care delivery under Medicare and health care delivery under Medicaid. Forty-two percent of the cost of Medicaid is spent on people who are covered by Medicare. Now, we need to do a better job of coordinating those programs, and there are opportunities for saving money. Of course, none of that has been studied, and none of that has been given to us in the way of recommendations. All we are presented with in this budget is a recommendation that we cut $15 billion and somehow or another essentially shift that cost to the States. I know there is some discussion up and down the halls that maybe Secretary Leavitt has made some arrangement with the Governors and they are agreeable to this $15 billion cut. I have spoken with our Governor, Governor Richardson of New Mexico, who is head of the western Democratic Governors--maybe all the Governors; I am not exactly sure of the title he holds these days. He is a leader on this issue, and he has assured me there is no deal and that these cuts that are proposed in this budget will adversely affect us in New Mexico. We are struggling to continue the services we have traditionally provided under Medicaid. We are struggling to deal with the fact that more and more people are insisting on services in Medicaid because they are losing their private health insurance. That is why the cost of Medicaid overall has been going up, because more and more people are dependent on Medicaid. This is an important amendment. Senator Smith deserves the support of all of our colleagues on this amendment. I urge all our colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for yielding. I send the amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment is being proposed by Senator Smith and myself, Senator Coleman, Senator Baucus, and other cosponsors who are listed on the amendment. I wanted to start by commending my colleague from Oregon for his leadership on this very important issue. He has made the exact, right points. I will be brief in my comments because other Senators are here wishing to speak as well. I want to give them an opportunity to do so. Medicaid is the most important program that pays for health care coverage in my State today. There are over 400,000 people in the State of New Mexico who receive health care because of the Medicaid Program. As he pointed out, these are the people who are most in need of that care, who are least able to cover their own health care costs. There are 53 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, disabled, and elderly citizens that rely on Medicaid for their well- being and livelihood. And there are 45 million Americans without health insurance coverage. The President offered a budget proposal that added $140 billion for health care spending. Even with the proposed reductions in Medicaid spending, he was proposing a net increase of $80 billion for health care. In contrast, the budget before us provides no spending for the uninsured and a cut in Medicaid of $15 billion over 5 years. This is important because the administration only got a scored savings of $7.6 billion in Medicaid. So, it is $140 billion short of the President's proposal on the uninsured and the cut for Medicaid is scored at twice the level of the President's budget, according to CBO. This budget is seeking to reduce the deficit, but sadly at the expense of the uninsured and our Nation's most vulnerable children, elderly, and disabled citizens that rely on the Medicaid program. As a result, I am pleased to be here today with my colleague Senator Smith in support of the bipartisan Smith-Bingaman-Coleman-Baucus amendment to strike the Medicaid cuts and to replace it with a bipartisan Medicaid Commission. Senator Smith and I strongly believe that Medicaid needs reform and improvement. For years, Medicaid has been neglected. Democrats are often trying to push for universal coverage and neglect fixing issues with Medicaid. Meanwhile, Republicans have proposed block granting the Medicaid program without addressing reform. Just 2 years ago, that proposal was defeated on the Senate floor. Sadly, we are here again with a proposal to cut Medicaid, but no thoughts about how to reform and improve the Medicaid program. We are imposing cuts on Medicaid at twice the level the President proposed, as scored by CBO, with little more guidance than rhetoric about cutting ``waste and fraud in the system.'' According to the Budget Committee staff document, ``at least 34 States are estimated to be receiving up to $6 billion a year in Federal Medicaid dollars inappropriately.'' Which States? I think we all deserve to know who they are and what they are doing before voting to cut funding to them. In the Senate Finance Committee, a bipartisan group of Senators asked the Secretary for that list and we still do not have it. However, anybody that asks is being assured not to worry because their State is not the problem. How can we cut $15 billion to the States without it seriously impacting any State or any of the 53 million people served by Medicaid? Even the best circus elephant or donkey cannot pull off such a feat. To get scored savings, the Finance Committee will be forced to make major cuts in funding to the States. Let me emphasize, no State is protected. Also, while some of the proposals have so little detail that we have no idea about the impact on individual States, we do know the budget assumes saving $1.5 billion by dropping the matching rate for targeted case management in Medicaid from the current matching rate to 50 percent Federal and 50 percent State. Again, there is nothing about reform here. It is simply about cutting Federal funding to States. And, in this case, we do know which States, and they are the poorest States in this country. It may come as somewhat of a shock to some in the Senate, but the cuts would fall disproportionately on the 28 States of Mississippi, Montana, Arkansas, West Virginia, New Mexico, Utah, Idaho, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana, Maine, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Georgia, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, and Florida. President Bush carried 26 of the 28 States and those States have 43 Republican Senators and 13 Democratic Senators. Simple mathematics tells us that will not fly in the Senate. So, two of the largest proposals for savings truly have nothing to do with Medicaid reform and one does not have enough details to allow CBO to provide scored savings and the other has enough detail that we know it will never be enacted. So, what we have here are proposed Medicaid budget cuts in search of a policy. It is with that in mind that Senator Smith and I come to the floor today to actually attempt to reform and improve the Medicaid program in a systematic way. Our proposal is to strike the arbitrary cuts in the budget before us and replace them with the establishment of a 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. Medicaid is a very complicated program. In fact, it is not one program. It is really four programs. First, it is a program that provides health insurance for 25 million low-income children. Second, it provides a safety net of coverage to 14 million adults, primarily low-income working families that play by the rules and work but do not have access to or cannot afford health insurance. Third, 42 percent of Medicaid spending is actually for what are known as ``dual eligibles,'' which are over 7 million elderly and disabled citizens that have both Medicare and Medicaid coverage. Therefore, Medicaid fills the holes in both Medicare and private insurance by providing acute and long-term care services that neither Medicare or the private sector is able or willing to cover. And fourth, Medicaid serves as a critical payment system for our Nation's safety net, including payments to disproportionate share hospitals for indigent care or to community health centers and other safety net providers. Without that funding, many of these critical community services would end. Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net of four different programs that provides services to over 50 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, pregnant women, the elderly, and people with disabilities. In New Mexico, Medicaid is, in fact, the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 300,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population. It is why I believe firmly we need to make sure that we do whatever we do right rather than quick. Medicaid is the back-stop to Medicare, the back-stop 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. I would like to take a few moments to emphasize the importance of Medicaid to our Nation's children. Again, over 25 million children receive health care services through Medicaid. This includes an estimated 42 percent of our Nation's black children and 36 percent of our Nation's Hispanic children. Children covered by Medicaid are far less likely than uninsured children to lack a usual source of medical care or have an unmet medical, dental, or prescription drug need. 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 his own words: 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. The President put that proposal into his budget, but I do not see it in this budget. We should not be going backwards on children's health, but we will in this budget unless this amendment we offer today passed. We should take time and ``first do not harm'' to our Nation's health care safety net. We have tried to enact reform quickly before and it has created many problems. For example, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Congress cut funding for disproportionate share hospitals and Medicare physician payments in rather indiscriminate ways. As a result, the Congress has come back in 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2003 to make what are known as ``provider give-backs.'' The cumulative pages of legislation to correct the Medicare and Medicaid changes from 1997 now far exceed the original legislation, the problems continue and, in some cases, even grow. In fact, we have a crisis with Medicare physician payments that everybody acknowledges will now cost billions and billions of dollars to correct. Unfortunately, these ``fixes'' are not reflected in this budget, but we all know that the Congress will have to address the problem. I fear the budget, as currently proposed, will create more problems that need fixing rather than correcting the current problems. Therefore, Senator Smith and I call for a process by which we can enact reforms to Medicaid but do it correctly, rationally, and in a bipartisan fashion. For example, we should ensure that people have more access to home- and community-based care in Medicaid. Doing so would provide care in more cost-effective and appropriate settings for many Medicaid patients. However, despite a lot of rhetoric about how this is one of the reasons Medicaid needs reform, the budget proposal before us does not address this problem. There are those that believe Medicaid is ``flawed and inefficient'' and that costs are spiraling out of control so the program needs overhaul. On the other hand, there are those who believe there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct. First, Medicaid is far from broken. 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. On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to ``maximize Medicaid revenues'' via ``enhanced payments'' to certain institutional providers. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.'' I would agree. However, Medicaid cuts driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one- way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose budget cuts on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, including $34-40 billion that would directly harm States. Where is the conversation in that? In fact, I believe the States would have quite a lot to say to the Federal Government in such a conversation. While I do not speak for the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, or the National Association of Counties, some of their grievances are rather obvious and I share them. For one, these cuts are merely a cost-shift to State and local governments that simply force State Medicaid programs to enact cuts in coverage to our Nation's most vulnerable populations or require tax increases to make up for the loss of Federal funding. It is pretty simple. If the Federal Government cuts $15 billion out of Medicaid, New Mexico will likely lose over $100 million in Federal funding for Medicaid. Either some of our State's most vulnerable citizens will lose coverage or benefits, or taxpayers will be asked to pay more. Governor Richardson is a pretty impressive guy, but he cannot magically produce the $100 million that the Federal Government would cut to our State under this budget proposal. Second, as figures from the Kaiser Family Foundation indicate, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are a result of services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where the Federal Government pushes costs on to Medicaid. Instead, better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs and delivery of care to ``dual eligibles.'' States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail. Third, for all the rhetoric about being concerned about what States are doing in drawing down Federal funding, we should acknowledge that the Federal Government passes the buck on to States in other ways. For example, in the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the states to help pay for the federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States were expected to derive a financial windfall from the prescription drug bill, they are now finding that it will cost them millions of dollars more annually through what is referred to as the ``clawback provision'' than if the bill had never passed. Furthermore, CBO estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low- income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation. States have no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them, but they should and will have that ability in our bipartisan commission on Medicaid. Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 States will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation. I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the bipartisan commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid. It is our intent that the recommendations would not only be focused on spending inefficiencies but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done. Before closing, I thank Senator Smith for his leadership on this issue and the over 100 organizations--State and local governments, providers, and consumer groups that have endorsed this amendment. We have the attention and support of all these groups to come to the table to make Medicaid more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. We should not pass up that opportunity. The policy needs to drive the budget. As Senator Smith said, and as Senator Coleman said, we cannot just take a figure out of the air and say we are going to cut Medicaid because we need to make up some money in the budget in order to get to the number that we predetermined we ought to get to. That kind of arbitrary cut in Medicaid, when we are doing nothing to constrain the growth of Medicare, when we are doing nothing to constrain the growth of spending in a lot of other areas, would be irresponsible. Exactly as Senator Smith pointed out, it is important that we do this right, that we do this fast. This first chart I wanted to point to shows the States in red which are going to suffer these cuts. There is $4 billion proposed for cuts in these States that are depicted in red on this map. It turns out that most of those are the States that supported the President's reelection in large numbers. We have a couple of other charts which I very briefly would like to point out. One is a chart that points out that Medicaid is not the great inefficient program that everyone is pointing to. Medicaid has grown 4.5 percent per year the last few years. Medicare has grown over 7 percent. The private sector health care expenses have grown over 12 percent. There is enormous growth in Medicaid because more and more people are depending on Medicaid. That is the simple point. This last chart points out that 42 percent of the cost of Medicaid is because of the ``dual eligibles.'' These are people who are covered by Medicare, but Medicaid is having to pick up a substantial portion. We need to understand these programs better before we begin cutting them. The Senator from Oregon has provided a real service to us in the Senate by focusing attention on this. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to add my voice today in support of the amendment offered by Senator Cantwell. This amendment would strike the instruction to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee contained in the budget resolution premised on opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development and enacting the Pick-Sloan Missouri Basin Program cost recovery proposal set forth in the President's Budget for fiscal year 2006. I would like to address both of these issues. First, I have concerns regarding the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal. Although I have not had an opportunity to thoroughly review the proposal, I am advised that it could result in significant rate increases for power users in rural areas of the Upper Midwest and the Great Plains. The instruction assumes that the provision would increase revenues by $33 million in fiscal year 2006 and $157 million over the next 5 years. If the committee should choose not to enact the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal, we would be obligated to find these revenues elsewhere. Given the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee, our options are few. We have only limited mandatory spending within our jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction over imposition of fees for the use of public lands. Administration of oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf and the revenues raised from opening areas currently covered by moratoria is within the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee. Similarly, the President's budget contains a proposal to divert revenues from southern Nevada land sales, which falls within our committee's jurisdiction. All of these are likely to be controversial. The best way to ensure that the Pick Sloan cost recovery proposal is not enacted as part of budget reconciliation legislation and the only way to avoid finding an offset is to support the Cantwell amendment to strike the instruction, and I think that is clearly the preferred course of action at this juncture. Turning now to the Arctic Refuge, there are many reasons--related to both energy security and environmental concerns--that lead me to conclude that I cannot support oil and gas leasing and development in the Arctic Refuge. The most compelling reason for not opening the Arctic Refuge is that it will do very little, if anything, to further our national energy security. If opened, not one drop of oil will come from the Arctic Refuge for 7 to 12 years. The most recent Energy Information Administration, EIA, study, ``Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,'' March 2004, assumes that production will not occur for 10 years. According to EIA, peak production will not occur for another 10 to 11 years after initial production. Thus, we will have to wait for 20 years before having the benefit of maximum production from the Arctic Refuge. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge does nothing to address near-term shortages or issues of energy security. More importantly, drilling in the Arctic Refuge does not address our reliance on imported oil. The United States relies on imports for 58 percent of its current oil supplies. The Energy Information Administration in March 2004 has estimated that production from the Arctic Refuge would, at its peak, reduce our reliance on imports by only 4 percent by the year 2025, based on the mean estimate of technically recoverable resources. Unlike other future-looking initiatives that we could undertake now, drilling in the Refuge would over the long term have no effect on reducing imports, once the oil resources in the refuge have been depleted. Unfortunately, the controversy over the Arctic Refuge diverts attention from the real opportunities to enhance domestic energy production. Last Congress, we enacted energy tax legislation that I believe is a good start in addressing our Nation's energy future. Unlike opening the Arctic Refuge, this legislation is intended to provide a near-term increase in domestic energy production. Not only does the legislation include tax provisions that would promote highly efficient hybrid vehicles and alternative transportation fuels such as ethanol, make renewable energy more competitive, and enhance energy efficiency, it would also provide specific incentives to increase oil and gas production at home. In particular, I am pleased that we were able to pass the marginal well production tax credit. It is my hope that this year we will be able to expand upon the energy tax package that was enacted last Congress and do even more to provide for our Nation's energy security. Environmentally sound development of the National Petroleum Reserve-- Alaska provides another opportunity to enhance our domestic energy security. This is 23.5 million acres of Federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the Nation's petroleum reserves for the national security. The area is highly prospective for oil and gas. BLM conducted lease sales in 1999, 2002, and 2004 that had an extremely high level of industry interest. Several wells have been drilled that have encountered oil and gas. The NPRA is estimated to hold a mean value of 3.1 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil at $24 per barrel and a mean estimate of 9.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil. While I believe that BLM should take all measures to conduct leasing in an environmentally sensitive way, and also am of the view that there are areas of NPRA that should not be developed, the vast majority of this resource can and should be tapped to enhance our energy security. Renewables, energy efficiency and R&D must play an increased role in meeting our Nation's energy needs. Clean energy from renewable sources such as the sun, the wind, the ocean, geothermal heat and biomass helps to diversify our energy portfolio and enhance our energy security with minimal environmental impact. In addition, a rational energy strategy should focus on cost- effective ways to reduce energy demand, not solely on increasing supply. Energy efficiency provides an array of benefits--economic growth, national security, reliability and environmental protection. Our growth in demand, each year, for automotive fuels far exceeds any potential new domestic oil production. That includes any production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even if we were to open it and even if the Arctic Refuge has more oil than anyone thinks is likely. Because of that reality, Congress needs to take a serious approach to increasing the fuel efficiency of our new cars, trucks, and SUVs. We cannot talk seriously about loosening our dependence on foreign oil without advancing meaningful improvements in automotive fuel efficiency. In conclusion, Mr. President, there are many reasons why the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge need not and should not be drilled for oil and gas. The environmental sensitivity of this area is well-known. Opening the Arctic Refuge is not good environmental policy, but equally important to our Nation, it is far from necessary to our energy policy. I urge my colleagues to join me in opposition to oil and gas leasing and development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Our dependency on foreign oil is now over 11 million barrels a day-- it is rapidly moving towards 20 million barrels a day. This is important. Let's assume our dependence will be 19 or 20 million barrels a day by 2025. The oil produced at ANWR would represent about 5 percent of what we need to import from foreign sources. That is a lot. I close by saying 1 million barrels of oil a day equals $18.4 billion a year in balance of trade dollars. We talked about the merchandise trade balance. Currently, 25.5 percent of this country's merchandise trade deficit is from net imports of crude oil and petroleum products. Everybody is worried about it.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, the amendment I have sent to the desk relates to the level of funding in this budget for education. It proposes to restore the funding level to the level we are currently operating under here in 2005, so that in 2006 we would have as much Federal funding going out for education as we had in 2005. We would not have any more. We would not have enough to account for additional inflation. We would not have enough to account for additional students, children coming into the school system. But we would have the same amount if my amendment is adopted. The budget resolution before us embraces and adopts the worst education budget the country has seen for well over 10 years. Writing budgets is about setting priorities. Anyone who reads this budget must conclude that education is not a priority for this Congress or for anyone who supports this budget. Simply put, the budget proposal before us does not provide sufficient funding to sustain current funding levels in many education programs. In title I, in IDEA, it provides no significant increases in funding. There is really no funding provided for the new initiatives which had been talked about by the administration. The resolution adopts the President's budget and, by implication, it endorses the cuts the President has called for. The budget would eliminate 48 educational programs and would drastically cut funding for several other programs. My amendment, as I said before, would merely restore the $4.8 billion in funding for these programs. It also provides for deficit reduction as part of the same amendment. In December of 2001, there were 87 of us here in the Senate who voted in support of No Child Left Behind. I was one of those. We recognized there was an unacceptable achievement gap in this country between low- income students and more affluent students, or students of more affluent families. So, with broad bipartisan support, we decided to hold schools accountable for the academic achievement of all students, but we did so with the recognition that the Federal Government was obligated to support these reforms and to implement them wisely. On a bipartisan basis we calculated what it would cost for States and schools to implement the law, and we authorized the programs accordingly. The administration assured many of us that it would support these commitments of funding. Three years later, however, we find the programs authorized under No Child Left Behind underfunded by about $12 billion this year alone. Since enactment, we have actually seen a cumulative shortfall of almost $27 billion. That is reflected on this chart, starting in fiscal year 2002 and 2003, 2004, 2005. The first year, the shortfall was $4.22 billion; the next year, $5.38 billion; the next year, $7.55 billion. These are not added together on this chart. These are the shortfalls for each year. But the cumulative shortfall in No Child Left Behind programs, when you include this budget that has come before us now, would approximate $39 billion. I do not believe there is a Member in the Senate who has not heard about the challenges their States and their school districts face in attempting to implement the No Child Left Behind legislation. Yet the resolution fails to provide adequate funding to help the States and to help our school districts implement the law. It provides minimal increases for title I grants to States which serve the country's most impoverished schools; minimal increases for IDEA. To make matters worse, because there are no increases in overall funding, these inadequate increases are paid for by proposals to eliminate and slash other critical education programs. Since the passage of No Child Left Behind, we found that the number of schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress--and that is the key phrase in the legislation: AYP, adequate yearly progress--the number of schools failing to meet adequate yearly progress for 2 or more years has nearly doubled. It is nearly 11,000 schools nationwide. These schools are facing sanctions under No Child Left Behind. What we mean by sanctions is that they will be required to expend an amount equal to as much as 20 percent of their title I grant to provide school choice and supplemental services; that is, transportation to other schools and supplemental services. These schools require resources. They will require technical assistance and expertise and effective strategies if they are actually going to improve. Many of these schools will not find the resources they need to turn themselves around. Further, No Child Left Behind requires that all core academic teachers be ``highly qualified'' by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. That is this next school year. Our schools are gearing up to try to meet that requirement. Yet, astonishingly, this budget fails to provide any increases in title 2 for teacher and principal training and recruitment. In fact, it eliminates or slashes a number of teacher preparation programs. At a time when educators around the country are fighting to meet the challenges of No Child Left Behind, rather than providing them with the necessary resources, this budget actually cuts the ground out from under them. The committee may actually undermine their best efforts to improve student achievement and teacher quality and to meet our goal of closing the achievement gap. Moreover, I am afraid the budget resolution can be seen as something of a shell game. The resolution set a nearly identical level of discretionary spending as is in the President's budget. There is just one exception: the President's budget sets a very clear policy decision and identifies where the severe cuts are to occur. This resolution adopts the President's budget, but it obfuscates policy decisions by failing to provide budget assumptions. The level of funding in the budget resolution is nearly identical to the President's. It is insufficient to meet the needs of current spending and meet the need of the President's priorities, and it fails to say where the cuts will actually occur. The resolution endorses the President's budget but hides the truth about from where those cuts will come. Since it endorses the President's budget, the only thing we can assume is that it endorses the President's priorities as well as his cuts. These are the programs the budget eliminates. Let me show chart 2, which is a list of educational programs the President has recommended we eliminate. There are 48. I know it is impossible to read from any distance, but I will have a chance in the rest of my remarks to point out that many of these programs are meritorious and deserve our continued support. The shell game nature of what is going on here is most evident in the context of high school reform. The President proposes a $1.5 billion high school reform initiative. Who could not support that? It sounds like a great idea, but, unfortunately, it is paid for by eliminating a number of critical high school programs, including Perkins Vocational Education. Just last week, here in the Senate we voted 99 to 0 in favor of reauthorizing the Perkins Vocational Education Act. Through the leadership of the chair and ranking member of the HELP Committee, we crafted a strong career and technical educational program in a bipartisan manner, and we did so despite the President's call to eliminate the Perkins program entirely. Clearly, 99 of our colleagues recognized that career and technical education is an important part of strengthening our high schools. This budget, however, does not provide sufficient funds for both the Perkins program, which we all endorsed last week, and the high school reform initiative that the President indicated he supports. Ninety-nine members voted in support of Perkins, but obviously that support is not real if we do not support it with funding. The budget resolution does not do that. The chair of the Budget Committee cosponsored the Perkins legislation, spoke on the floor in support of the program, but the budget resolution would eliminate the program. In the budget that was sent to the Congress, the President proposed a new $1.5 billion high school reform initiative. Most of us agree that we need to do more at the high school level. Forty percent of our high school graduates are not ready for the demands of college or the competitive workforce. Clearly, I support what the President has recommended by way of increases to advance placement and math and science partnerships and reading programs. But the President would pay for these increases by eliminating or slashing other high school programs--the vocational education program that I just mentioned, the Smaller Learning Communities Program, the TRIO Program, the GEAR UP Program. Obviously, the President is entitled to believe that those programs I just listed do not work, although the evidence, in my view, proves otherwise. I believe most Members of the Senate believe otherwise. We need to be clear to the American public, though, that this resolution does not provide support for these critical programs. I believe we all want to strengthen our high schools, and there are effective ways to do so. It is noted on the Department of Education's Web site, which anyone can log on to. When the size of the learning community and the learning environment is reduced, and closer student-teacher relationships are provided, the benefits for student learning become apparent very quickly. Students learn better in smaller learning communities. They experience a greater sense of belonging to their school. They have fewer discipline problems. Crime and violence, gang, and alcohol and tobacco abuse decline. This budget, however, eliminates the $95 million that we have in current funding for smaller learning communities. The TRIO and the GEAR UP programs have helped millions of underrepresented student populations prepare for and succeed in college. To understand the breadth and success of these programs, it is worth noting that TRIO serves more than 55,000 students in Texas, 25,000 students in Pennsylvania, 6,000 students in Maine, and 9,000 students in Montana. Nevertheless, the budget would eliminate the program. GEAR UP, which currently serves more than 1 million students nationwide, has been extremely effective in preparing low-income students for postsecondary education, as well as improving the academic achievement of the students who participate in this program in high school. I know how effective the program has been in my State of New Mexico. ENLACE, a GEAR UP program in our State, has been very successful in helping Hispanic students to develop leadership skills, prepare for college, and advocate for their own education. This budget would eliminate funding for more than 4,000 students who participate in the program in Virginia and 7,000 students in Rhode Island. With regard to graduation rates, this country is facing a crisis. The best estimate we have is that only 68 percent of our Nation's high school students actually graduate with a high school diploma in the time allotted for high school completion. The number is significantly worse if the student happens to be African American or Hispanic or Native American. I am pleased to hear the administration talking about increasing graduation rates. The low graduation rate of our students is a national disgrace. We recognized this problem in the No Child Left Behind Act, and we required States and schools to increase graduation rates as part of adequate yearly progress, or AYP. But we also recognized the challenges of mandating higher graduation rates without adequate resources, and we authorized $125 million for States and school districts to develop innovative dropout prevention programs. The President has proposed to eliminate that program. With all due respect, we cannot talk about increasing graduation rates and at the same time propose to eliminate efforts that would help decrease dropouts. This program received less than $5 million last year. The administration calls for its elimination because it is too small and too ineffective. The argument is circular. If we funded the program anywhere near the level that it is authorized, then it would not be too small, and it would not be ineffective. Members talk about stemming the tide of dropouts, but eliminating dropout prevention programs is not the way to do that. We have real challenges. Too many of our students are leaving high school unprepared to meet the demands of college and a competitive workforce. This budget eliminates critical and effective programs, such as comprehensive school reform, education technology, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, parent information centers, gifted and talented programs, school counseling, Ready to Teach, Arts in Education, Even Start, National Writing Project, foreign language assistance, and school leadership. The administration claims that programs such as mental health integration and school counseling are not a priority or they are funded elsewhere. Unfortunately, when you look at where they are funded elsewhere, the funds there are also being cut. The administration claims that many programs are too small, or funds for programs such as Safe and Drug-Free Schools are spread too thin to be effective. I think the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Students in Oregon learn about the dangers of steroids because of that Safe and Drugfree Schools program. Safe and Drugfree Schools helps families in Iowa, helps prevent alcohol and drug abuse in Minnesota, helps strengthen families in Iowa, provides critical funding to prevent youth violence in Richmond, VA, and on and on. There are many examples. My own State loses $3 million under the proposed budget of the administration and that this budget resolution contains. Taking a step backward, in my view, the budget eliminates education technology grants. We need to build on efforts to integrate technology into learning, not cut back on those efforts. Particularly, this is important for rural schools. We need to increase access to courses, equip teachers with advances in technology, and provide students with the means to compete in the global economy. There is substantial money involved in education technology funding. Schools in Pennsylvania receive $17 million; schools in Texas, $42 million; Florida, $23 million; Colorado, $4 million; Georgia, $15 million; Virginia, $8 million; my home State of New Mexico, $4 million. By eliminating these critical programs, we will be causing real harm to real students and schools. Using the Department of Education data, here is a sample of who participates in these programs. Some of the programs I have listed have a substantial number of students involved. Comprehensive school reform: 2,473 schools benefit from that, approximately, and 1.18 million children benefit from that program. Small learning communities: 591 schools and 591,000 students were to be served in 2004. It is clear there are actual effects on students from the cuts we are proposing. The budget also slashes funding for other critical programs such as adult basic education and literacy, Grants for Innovative Programs, and Advanced Credentialing. My colleagues tout increases in title I spending since the President took office. There have been increases of Title I spending. A significant amount of that increase has been added by the Congress and not requested by the administration. There have been increases and the administration asked for some of those increases. But we are still substantially below what we authorized. The level of funding is still cumulatively, if this budget is approved, $39 billion less than what we authorized for No Child Left Behind Programs, and $30.8 billion less than authorized for title I. The level is $3.6 billion less than the amount we authorized for this, this year in IDEA when that was reauthorized a few months ago. It is also important to note that the increases were significant in only the first couple of years of No Child Left Behind. Last year, we saw an increase of less than $400 million in title I spending. This year's proposed increase is only about $600 million. In fact, the small increases are offset by changes in the poverty data and resulted in more than half of the Nation's school districts receiving fewer title I funds for the 2004/2005 school year. Ten States had their title I funds cut from the previous year's level. For this school year, Connecticut, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Oregon all see cuts from last year's title I allocation. This chart shows a sample of the school districts in my State and the amounts they can expect. They have already been advised by the Department of Education that these lower amounts will be provided through title I funding for them from the current school year. The budget resolution would further complicate and add to those cuts that have already been made. In my view, there is no higher priority for the future well-being of the country than the education of our children. I offer this amendment to bring the level of funding for education back to where it is in the current year. That is not too much to ask if we do believe that education is a priority. I urge my colleagues to support education in this budget and to adopt my amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak very briefly. I gather we will have a vote in 3 minutes on my amendment. I wish to speak very briefly to summarize what it does and urge my colleagues to support the amendment. The amendment very simply tries to restore in this budget the funds that the President has recommended we eliminate for various educational programs and that this budget also recommends we eliminate for various educational programs. There is a long list of educational programs that is slated for termination in this budget. There are 48 programs. Some of them are programs about which many of us have spoken very eloquently. The Vocational Education Program, the Perkins legislation we passed last week, is a good example. We had a 99-to-0 vote in the Senate to reauthorize the legislation for vocational education, most of which is in our high schools, that is contained in that Perkins legislation. This budget, the budget the President has sent us, would eliminate funding for that program. We have a great many other programs--Arts in Education; the GEAR UP program, which is focused on trying to assist minority students and economically disadvantaged students to go on to college; the TRIO program; the Upward Bound Program which, again, serves many students in my State and throughout the country. These are all programs that I hear about when I go back to schools in my State. People say these are good programs. They are programs that are helping our students. They are, in fact, strengthening our high schools. I know the administration's position is that we should concentrate on high schools this year and perhaps next year. That is the President's desire, that No Child Left Behind should also be extended into our high schools. I favor doing that, but I also believe very strongly that we need to keep the programs in place that are helping our high schools. We need to build on the successes we have had, not eliminate the successes we have had. I feel very strongly that unless we add this additional money and keep these programs in place, we will, in fact, be putting our schools back rather than forward. One other program I wish to mention which is slated for termination in the President's budget and, of course, in this budget that is presented to us in the Smaller Learning Communities Program. We are spending in the current year $94.5 million in that program. That is a program to help primarily high schools to restructure so they can provide smaller learning environments for their students. This is an extremely important concept. I am persuaded that much of the dropout problem in our schools is the result of the fact that we are sending students into very large high schools. We need to help them restructure into smaller learning communities. These grants help to do that. I believe very strongly that we should be increasing that funding, not eliminating it. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of a critical piece of legislation, the reauthorization of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act. More than ever, we need rigorous, relevant career and technical education programs to help students prepare for postsecondary education and to address the shortage of highly skilled workers necessary to meet the demands of the contemporary workforce. A skilled and flexible workforce is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy and to maintaining our country's ability to compete in 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. Further, a survey by the National Association of Manufacturers found that 80 percent of manufacturers experience a shortage of qualified workers. Most troubling, as many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, resulting in American workers losing $136 billion in wages. With this reality, it is vitally important to support S. 250, the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education, CTE, Improvement Act of 2005. This legislation promotes a rigorous curriculum, innovative learning environments, and relevant coursework and training, thus ensuring students receive the education and training necessary to develop a highly skilled workforce. Strong career and technical education programs are essential in addressing this shortage of highly skilled workers and in preserving American jobs. Career and technical education must be academically rigorous and enhance students' critical thinking and applied skills. Accordingly, this bill makes a number of significant improvements to ensure that CTE students participate in a rigorous and challenging curriculum, and realize positive educational and employment outcomes. For example, the bill integrates challenging academic and technical standards, aligned with No Child Left Behind and nationally-recognized industry standards, into CTE instruction. The bill also strengthens educational and career pathways for students beyond high school and makes significant strides in building alliances among high schools, 2- and 4-year colleges, business and industry, and community organizations. Further, the bill expands career guidance and academic counseling services to ensure that students have a career plan and career objectives. Well-prepared CTE teachers and good professional development are essential components of an effective, rigorous CTE curriculum. CTE teachers must possess the knowledge and skills to teach effectively. Hence, this bill dedicates resources to promoting the leadership, initial preparation, and professional development of career and technical education teachers to foster effective practices. Mr. President, this bill is designed to improve student educational and employment outcomes, including their technical and workplace knowledge and skills. But, we must be able to measure how well CTE programs are meeting the needs of its students. Accordingly, the legislation will require states to identify core indicators of performance that include measures of student achievement on technical assessments and attainment of career and technical skill proficiencies. Thus, it is essential to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical and career competencies that are aligned with national industry standards and integrate industry certification assessments, if available and appropriate. To address this need for high-quality technical assessments, this bill permits State leadership funds to be used to develop valid and reliable assessments of technical skills that are integrated with industry certification assessments where available. Yet, increasing academic and technical rigor alone is not enough to prepare students to enter into and compete in the 21st century workforce. The learning environment students experience also heavily impacts academic performance and student outcomes. When smaller learning communities are in place, students benefit greatly: they experience a greater sense of belonging to their schools and they have fewer discipline, crime, violence, and substance abuse problems. I would like to highlight two high schools in my home State of New Mexico which demonstrate some of the best practices of rigorous and innovative career and technical education. Rio Rancho High School, in partnership with Intel Corporation, has served as a model example of how academic rigor, hands-on-learning, strong professional development, defined career pathways, and robust alliances are elements of a successful, quality CTE program. Rio Rancho has created academies of study for all students, which allow students to: pursue career pathways to postsecondary education and beyond; take core courses geared toward interests, skills, and competitive careers; form partnerships with instructors; and become part of a smaller learning community within the larger high school. The academies allow students to explore personal strengths and interests in relationship to career planning and job markets. Accordingly, Rio Rancho has been designated as a Microsoft Center of Innovation and Time Magazine has called Rio Rancho one of the ten most innovative career and technical schools in the nation. Another great example of innovative career and technical education can be found at Albuquerque High School. In just a couple of years, the career academies at Albuquerque High School have demonstrated very positive student outcomes. The first students in Albuquerque's Academy of Advanced Technology have lower dropout rates and improved academic achievement. Accordingly, this legislation recognizes that smaller learning communities are a critical educational investment and thus allows local funds to be used to support and develop personalized career themed learning communities. As Rio Rancho and Albuquerque High Schools demonstrate, rigorous career and technical education and smaller learning environments enhance students' achievement and motivation to learn. Mr. President, this country is facing a crisis. Only 68 percent of our Nation's students are graduating high school with a regular diploma in four years. We must devote more attention and resources to increase graduation rates and promote dropout prevention. Providing quality career and technical education is one crucial way to increase graduation rates. CTE programs provide students with relevance, and are themselves a form of dropout prevention. In fact, quality CTE programs result in positive educational and employment outcomes for students. Effective career and technical education results in increased school attendance, reduced high school dropout rates, increased entry into post-secondary education and greater access to high-tech careers. Accordingly, we must improve our ability to measure the effectiveness of career and technical education programs. High-quality data systems are essential to collect and analyze information regarding educational and employment outcomes and to inform the development of effective career and technical education programs. The data reported, however, must be complete, accurate, and reliable. Yet present data and data systems are too often incapable of meeting the requirements of career and technical education programs, of states, and of this Act. Accordingly, the bill includes several new provisions for data collection, utilization, and analysis, including provisions which allow the State allocation to be used to support and develop State data systems, and State leadership funds to be used to develop and enhance data systems to collect and analyze data on postsecondary and employment outcomes. Effective career and technical education programs are necessary to build a strong and dynamic economy and to maintain a competitive American workforce. This legislation evinces some of the best principles of strong, effective career and technical education. Mr. President, I fully support Senate passage of S. 250. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of a concurrent resolution I submitted yesterday which conveys the deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women who have been tragically murdered in Ciudad Juarez and throughout the state of Chihuahua, and urges the Governments of Mexico and the United States to work together to address this issue. This is an issue that has not only affected the people of Mexico but has long troubled the border communities across the entire Southwest region. Last Congress, I submitted a similar version of this resolution in conjunction with Representative Hilda Solis in the House of Representatives, and I am pleased that Senators Cornyn, Corzine, Durbin, Ensign, Feingold, Feinstein, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, and Murray, have joined me in resubmitting this resolution. This last Tuesday was International Womens' Day, and I believe that as we mark the achievements women have made, we must also recognize the challenges that remain. Stopping violence against women is one such challenge that we face. It is far too prevalent in our country and around the world, and we must do all we can to bring it to an end. Since 1993, bodies of young women began appearing in the deserts outside the city of Juarez, Mexico, marking the beginning of a horrendous epidemic that has plagued the United States-Mexico border region for more than 10 years. Since then, more than 370 women have been killed. Many of the young women were abducted in broad daylight in well-populated areas, held captive for several days, and subjected to physical violence, humiliation, and sexual torture before having their mutilated bodies discovered days, or sometimes years, later in deserted areas. Since 2004, at least 30 women have been killed in the city of Juarez in Chihuahua. On May 28, 2004, 14-year-old Luisa Rocio Chavez was found murdered in the state of Chihuahua after disappearing the previous morning on her way home from the store. She had been raped and strangled to death, and her body was found partially clothed. And before that, on April 26, 2004, a 33-year-old factory worker, Teresa Torbellin, was found after being beaten to death and dragged through bushes and desert, eventually being dumped in a deserted area outside the city. Like these deaths, nearly all of the cases remain unsolved. In fact, many of the bodies of victims have yet to be positively identified. One can only imagine how much pain and suffering this has caused the families and friends of these young women. I want to make sure these deaths are never forgotten, and that the Governments on both sides of the border continue to give this issue the attention it so rightly deserves. Human rights groups have reported that in many cases bodies have been misidentified, evidence contaminated or lost, key witnesses not properly interviewed, and autopsies inadequately performed. And there have been serious allegations of instances of individuals being tortured into confessing to these horrible crimes. In one such case, an American citizen, Cynthia Kiecker, and her husband Ulises Perzabal were accused of killing a young woman and reportedly tortured into confessing. I am pleased that they have since been released. President Vicente Fox has taken steps to address this issue by setting up the Commission to Prevent and Eradicate Violence Against Women, which is responsible for coordinating federal and state efforts in preventing violence of women in Ciudad Juarez and Chihuahua, and appointing a special prosecutor for punishing those responsible for the murders in Ciuad Juarez. The federal prosecutor, Maria Lopez Urbina, has reviewed over 200 cases and cited 130 Chihuahua public servants for negligence and malfeasance. I am encouraged that the new governor of Chihuahua, Jose Reyes Baeza Terrazass, has indicated a willingness to take steps to resole these murders. I also want to recognize the efforts of Commissioner Guadalupe Morfin Otero, who has done some good work in investigating the issues surrounding these deaths. The Mexican Federal Government has also established a DNA database to help better identify the victims. While obtaining independent verification of victims' remains an outstanding issue, the creation of this database is a positive step in the right direction. Although I am pleased that President Fox has taken the initiative on these fronts, I continue to believe that there needs to be a more coordinated effort on the part of the Mexican and U.S. Governments. That is why I have submitted this vitally important resolution. I stand ready to assist in any way I can, and I believe that the U.S. Government should be prepared to do so as well. The U.S. Agency for International Development has begun providing assistance to the state of Chihuahua for judicial reform, and I hope that the Mexican and U.S. Governments can work together on other initiatives as well. This resolution isn't meant to be a condemnation of Mexico. It is meant to express that the U.S. Congress stands with the victims of this violence and is willing to take constructive steps to assist in preventing these murders in the future. Specicially, this resolution would condemn the abductions and murders of young women in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico, express the sincerest condolences and deepest sympathy of the Senate to the families of the young women, and urge a continued multilateral effort on the part of the Governments of Mexico and the United States to address this issue. To this end, it would urge the Governments of Mexico and the United States to support steps that would allow families to positively identify the remains of the victims, and encourage the Secretary of States to continue to facilitate U.S. participation in such efforts. It would also encourage the Secretary of State to urge the Mexican Government to ensure fair and proper judicial proceedings for the individuals accused of these abductions and murders, and to impose appropriate punishment for those individuals found guilty of such crimes. Additionally, it would condemn threats against human rights activists and the use of torture as a means of investigation. Lastly, this resolution would condemn all senseless acts of violence against women across the world and express the solidarity of the people of the United States with the people of Mexico in the face of these tragic and senseless acts. This problem can't be ignored. We have the chance to help end the suffering of these innocent families, and I hope the Senate will join me in supporting this resolution.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 51 to the bankruptcy bill.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this amendment would help to ensure that legal representation remains affordable and accessible to lower income Americans who are forced into bankruptcy. As currently written, the bill contains provisions that would significantly increase attorney's fees and expenses related to the filing of a bankruptcy petition. Under existing law, attorneys can rely on information that a client provides regarding the extent and the value of their assets, such as the worth of a car, household furniture, and that sort of item. In an effort to combat the perceived abuse of the bankruptcy system, this proposed bill requires an attorney to certify that the attorney has made an inquiry into the client's assertions, and it subjects the lawyers to personal liability for inaccuracies in a debtor's list of assets. Although the proponents of this provision may argue that the change will prevent abuse, I believe it is an unnecessary change that will have significant unintended consequences. Under existing law, attorneys are already required to certify that pleadings, motions, and other materials have factual support pursuant to bankruptcy rule 9011. Attorneys are also prohibited from knowingly making any legal or factual misrepresentation to the court or assisting a client in any abuse. If we want to address misconduct by attorneys, what we need is better enforcement of those existing rules. If we want to address abuse by debtors in submitting their lists of assets, we should seek to hold those individuals responsible. My amendment would do that by making specific debts nondischargeable if the debtor lied about them in their bankruptcy schedule. With regard to the unintended consequences of these changes, in order to protect themselves from harsh sanctions, attorneys would be forced to conduct a costly investigation into the value and the actual existence of the client's claimed assets. This would not only directly increase the attorney's expenses, it would also likely raise very significantly other costs such as malpractice insurance. The Attorneys' Liability Protections Society, Inc., which is a malpractice carrier that insures 15,000 lawyers in 27 jurisdictions around the country, has estimated that the impact of this provision could result in the immediate increase of insurance premiums for bankruptcy lawyers from 10 to 20 percent. The bankruptcy bill contains another provision with regard to reaffirmation agreements that will also likely result in higher attorney's fees and costs. Current law provides that debtors can reaffirm a debt and therefore keep a specific asset, as long as the attorney certifies the decision to do so is voluntary and will not create undue hardship for the debtor. As drafted, S. 256 would require attorneys, where there is a presumption of hardship, to certify that debtors would be able to make future payments under the agreement. Attorneys are not accountants and would have to conduct extensive audits of their client's finances in order to determine if that client would be able to afford specific payments. Of course, that would drive up attorneys' fees as well. These additional costs would negatively impact on the accessibility of legal representation and court administration in two primary ways. First, they would reduce the ability of lawyers to take on pro bono cases and would make these legal services unavailable to many indigent debtors. In my own State, the law clinic at the University of New Mexico Law School has said if the bill passes in its current form, it would likely have to stop doing bankruptcy work for indigent clients due to the additional cost and concerns related to the attorney sanction provision. Second, these costs would place additional administrative burdens on the Nation's courts by increasing the number of individuals who would be representing themselves in the court proceeding due to their inability to afford an attorney. According to the Chief Bankruptcy Judge for the District of New Mexico, cases involving pro se debtors, debtors who are representing themselves, can take up to 10 times as much time to process as cases where debtors are represented by counsel. As such, even a small increase in the number of cases being processed without counsel could create substantial administrative burdens on our bankruptcy courts. So the amendment I have called up would do three things. First, it would replace the attorney liability language in section 102 of the bill with new language that would impose nondischargeable sanctions on debtors who lie on their bankruptcy schedules. Second, it would urge bankruptcy courts to more vigorously enforce existing rules regarding the sanctioning of attorneys where misconduct has been demonstrated. These changes would properly address abuse in the bankruptcy system by holding debtors responsible for intentional misrepresentations in listing the worth of their assets and holding attorneys responsible if they assist in any such abuse. Last, the amendment would maintain existing law with regard to the certification of reaffirmation agreements by attorneys. I understand the need to punish attorneys for abuse of the bankruptcy process but there are ways to do this without unnecessarily driving up the cost of legal representation. This, in my view, is an amendment that is reasonable. The American Bar Association has endorsed it. I urge my colleagues to support it as well. I have talked to various of my colleagues in the Senate. I have watched the amendments being defeated in the Senate for the last several days. I believe I am correct that every single amendment that has been offered to this bill has been defeated, many of them on pretty much a party-line vote. So it is clear to me that offering this amendment and actually requiring a vote on it will not be productive. I do believe it is a significant issue. It is an issue that should be addressed before this bill is completed and goes to the President for signature. I hope my colleagues will consider the need to address this issue and make changes in the bill. But, because of the lack of support, at this point I will not ask for a vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I briefly would like to say how pleased I am that the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act was enacted in the last Congress. That Act, Public Law 108-340, directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating one or more of the historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project as a unit of the National Park System. The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the world--would be difficult to overstate, and I believe that passing this bill was an important step in fulfilling our responsibility to ensure that society neither forgets nor misunderstands it.

Mr. BINGAMAN. The legislation directs the Secretary to include within the study the ``historically significant sites associated with the Manhattan Project.'' While the bill lists three of those sites, it does not limit the study to only those sites. Additional sites may be included, and it leaves that decision to the discretion of the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy and other interested Federal, State, tribal, and local officials, representatives of organizations, and members of the public. So, by those terms, there certainly is the opportunity for sites such as the Dayton Project to be included in the study.