Save More Tomorrow Act of 2012

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is being co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich. The pipeline would run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, including 7 miles of highway through Denali National Park and Preserve.

While many in this body are familiar with plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48 States, there is concern that the large-diameter pipeline will not be finished in time to provide needed gas to Southcentral Alaska-- gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and Kenai Peninsula.

Currently, electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas produced from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. Cook Inlet production has been falling for years and businesses have been forced to close as a result.

Serious concerns exist regarding the region's ability to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15.

Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2020 or later--6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Thus, to provide a reliable natural gas supply, Alaska is considering investing in a smaller pipeline to meet medium term demand.

There are two proposals for small-diameter, 24-inch, in-state pipelines. One would run along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska.

The other ``bullet'' line, is the pipeline of concern in this legislation. It would run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks, along the Parks Highway to the Mat-Su Valley near Anchorage, bringing about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets.

The shortest and most logical route for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve follows the existing highway, 7 miles of which pass through the Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance.

This route would be the least expensive to construct and operate. Moreover, it would offer several environmental advantages. Building the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right- of-way, would allow for electricity generation from natural gas in the park facilities at Denali. For the first time, reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles. Currently, National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park.

Another benefit is that in order for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, a new bridge will need to be built. The bridge would provide a pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors who otherwise must walk along the heavily traveled highway.

For these reasons, 8 environmental groups have expressed support for pipeline construction along the existing highway right-of-way through Denali Park. These groups are the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.

Last year, the State of Alaska finished a preliminary study of the project. It continues to consider whether to permit and facilitate a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, in order to meet future Southcentral power needs. Alaska state regulators and financial markets will ultimately decide which pipeline projects will go forward. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear legal impediments to planning for the Parks Highway route.

Approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and provide greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project. Eliminating the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will enable the Parks Highway route to compete on a level playing field with other pipeline projects.

In 2009, this bill was modified to meet concerns voiced by the environmental community, congressional staff, and the National Park Service. The version reintroduced today was approved unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17, 2009. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal fiscal impacts when scored as part of the larger bill--S. 1462.

With the pressing need of Southcentral Alaskans in mind for natural gas, I implore this body to quickly approve this legislation in the 112th Session.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still are subject to voidance.

The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the deadline, but no other evidence

of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.

This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175 in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.

Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a minor technical change to a provision that this Congress approved in 2004 to further construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline system to move Alaska's conventional gas to market.

In 2004 Congress approved two pieces of legislation to help facilitate construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. In Public Law 108-324 Congress approved a Federal loan guarantee program, streamlined regulatory processes and approved a worker training program to guarantee a domestic labor supply for construction of the largest private-sector capital infrastructure project in the world's history. In a separate bill, Public Law 108-357, Congress also approved tax changes to provide accelerated depreciation for the pipe and a related gas conditioning plant needed for the project. A pipeline to move Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves, and its likely 315 trillion cubic feet of additional Arctic gas reserves from lands and Arctic waters would have a host of benefits to the Nation.

Being able to market only the known gas reserves at the Prudhoe Bay field will involve construction of a pipeline system estimated to cost between $26 and $40 billion. It is expected to produce 38,000 direct job-years of labor in Alaska and up to 31,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. According to the National Defense Foundation it will produce direct employment of 172,369 jobs nationwide when related steel, pipe, valve and equipment jobs are included, not counting many more indirect jobs. At current prices it will generate about $100 billion in Federal tax revenues, not counting $40 billion in Alaska State revenues and $30 billion in Canadian tax revenues over its first 20 years of operation. Recent estimates, however, indicate that development of gas from the offshore Arctic that a gas line will permit to occur, would add an average of an additional 54,700 new jobs in the U.S.--91,500 at peak employment. That would provide $145 billion in total payroll--$82 billion to workers in the Lower 48--and provide $167 billion in tax and royalty revenues to the Federal Government, $15 billion to the State of Alaska and total revenues of $193 billion at forecast gas prices.

In the intervening 7 years since the gas line loan-permitting package became law, it has become clear that changes are needed. While those changes include revisions in the loan guarantee program, they also involve changes in the construction worker training provisions.

In the 2004 act, Sect. 113, the bill authorized $20 million for worker training programs, with at least 15 percent of those funds going to pay for ``design and construction of a training facility to be located in Fairbanks, Alaska.'' But language in the bill has prevented that training center from moving forward. This proposed bill would authorize Federal funding to be released immediately upon the request of the Governor of Alaska, to fund construction of the training center, and to broaden the center to permit it also to train oil, besides gas field workers, and environmental response employees.

According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the demand for skilled workers for gas and oil line projects on Alaska's North Slope grew by 50 percent from 2005 to 2009 to nearly 12,000 workers. At the same time, the average age of Alaska's skilled workforce is now 53, meaning that Alaska needs to train 1,000 new construction and pipeline workers annually simply to maintain the State's existing skilled workforce. Since it takes roughly 5 years to train a skilled construction/ pipefitter, it is imperative that such training begin far in advance of estimated pipeline construction. According to State data, there are only about 2,130 plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters working in Alaska and another 1,004 welders, solderers, brazers, and machine setters. Past estimates by one of the two consortia proposing to build an Alaska gas pipeline are that the gas line alone will require 1,650 welders/helpers, 2,000 equipment operators, 418 inspectors and 90 UT technicians, just to build the Alaska sections of the pipeline. That means there is an urgent need for the pipeline training center now.

The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center's core mission is to provide a highly trained workforce that will meet the needs of the entire oil/ gas/pipeline/refining industry; which is a significant component of Alaska's economy, providing 80 percent of the State's industrial tax base, 74 percent of all resources produced in the State, and 85 percent of State revenues) and a crucial component of the Nation's domestic energy supply, currently 13 percent of all domestically produced oil, while the proposed overland gas line will produce 7 percent of the Nation's total estimated gas demand in 2020. The necessity for this workforce is further emphasized because it is clear that an aging infrastructure will require an accelerated repair, replacement, and maintenance regime if production requirements and safety standard are to be met.

The training center is an innovative statewide collaboration between labor, industry, and local, State, and Federal Governments. Additionally, it is understood that as alternative fuel technologies emerge and are commercialize, a highly skilled, highly trained, highly motivated workforce will be required. Again, through collaboration with others: the University of Alaska, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric, and Alaskan commercial interests, requisite evolving workforce needs are understood and can be met.

The facility needs to be located in Interior Alaska, because the climate will permit workers to be fully trained in the real-world conditions they will face on the job. In order to complete the training center and thereby meet anticipated labor demand in a timely manner, funds must be secured in the upcoming budget cycle. Federal funding needed includes: $5.5 million for Central Facility classrooms and shops, $1.5 million for a Construction Camp Facility, $1.0 million for a Pipeline Coating Training Facility and for corrosion control training, $0.5 million for civil work improvements to the Field Training Site, and $1.5 million for pipeline and transportation/ logistical equipment.

The bill's changes will permit the creation of a domestic energy workforce that is stable, productive, and encourages safe working practices that will help to protect Alaska's environment and wildlife, while producing the energy that America needs. The proposal does not expand the size of the funding authorization approved in 2004. It simply makes it more likely that American workers will benefit from a gas line project when it proceeds--an important fact when the national unemployment rate remains at 9.4 percent. I hope that this Congress will consider this bill for quick consideration and passage.

Mr. President, we often use the metaphor of credit cards to talk about uncontrolled government spending, but in some cases, wasteful government spending is quite literally enabled by the use of charge cards in the hands of government bureaucrats. That is why I am reintroducing the Government Charge Card Abuse Prevention Act. This legislation will ensure that Federal departments and agencies have in place, and keep in place, the kinds of safeguards necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse with government issued charge

cards. We have made a lot of progress since I first started shining the spotlight on this issue with the help of the Government Accountability Office, GAO. This legislation will secure the gains we have made to prevent any backsliding while adding in extra mechanisms to prevent and detect misuse of government charge cards.

In 1998, the General Service Administration, GSA, entered into a contract with a set of commercial banks to utilize charge cards, not unlike those used by businesses large and small and millions of consumers worldwide. This is called the SmartPay program. These government charge cards include government purchase cards, which are used for acquisition of commercial goods and services by agencies and paid directly by the agency, and government travel cards, which are used to pay for individual government travel expenses and issued in the name of individual government employees.

Government charge cards were intended as a low cost method to streamline government acquisition and travel processes. The whole idea was to adopt the best practices of the commercial sector. In the business sector, charge cards have been a success. They save time and money. The main reason they work so well is because the control environment in the private sector is rock solid and accountability is a fact of life. When a business is spending its own money, it is going to be sure that it accounts for every penny or it won't stay in business. As a result, corporate America, if an employee is caught abusing a card, they'll lose it or get fired.

It is certainly a good idea for government to learn lessons from the business sector. However, there are certain fundamental differences between the private sector and the governmental sector that call for extra vigilance, mainly the fact that government spends other people's money. Human nature being what it is, most people are not nearly as careful spending other people's money as they would be spending their own.

Sure enough, when the SmartPay program was first implemented, Federal departments and agencies did not take near the care that a private business would when handing out company charge cards. When I started looking into this with the GAO, we uncovered blatant examples of wasteful spending. Government employees were using their government- issued charge cards to bypass any authorization and approval procedures and purchase items that had nothing to with their official duties. We are talking about LA-Z-Boy reclining chairs, kitchen appliances, and even a sapphire ring being paid for with government purchase cards, and with the American taxpayer paying the bill no questions asked.

Government travel cards have been used for gambling, sporting events, concerts, cruises, and even gentlemen's clubs and legalized brothels. While travel cards are not paid directly with taxpayers' money like purchase cards, failure by employees to repay these cards results in the loss of millions of dollars in rebates to the Federal Government. Also, when credit card companies are forced to charge off bad debt, they raise interest rates and fees on everyone else.

A series of GAO reports over the last decade have identified an inadequate and inconsistent control environment across numerous Federal agencies with respect to both government purchase cards and government travel cards. This has led to millions of dollars in taxpayers' money wasted. In some cases purchases were outright fraudulent, and others were of questionable need or were unnecessarily expensive. In each report it has issued, the GAO has made recommendations about what kind of controls need to be implemented to prevent such abuses from occurring in the future. In many cases, the same controls were often missing or inadequate, and therefore the same recommendations are repeated in report after report. One agency would promise to clean up its act, but then we would find the exact same problems with another. That is why I worked to develop legislation that would incorporate GAO's recommendations regarding some of the most basic controls needed in every agency to prevent abuse of government charge cards.

As a result of the pressure applied by the relentless oversight of Congress, the GAO, and agency Inspectors General, we have seen some progress toward establishing a better control environment. In fact, the Office of Management and Budget has issued to Federal agencies a circular that seeks to bring about many of the controls we identified. However, this progress would not have been possible without the continual spotlight being shone on the problem and the threat of congressional action.

In addition to requiring the most important internal controls across the government, the bill requires all Federal agencies to establish penalties for violations, including dismissal when circumstances warrant. This is necessary not only so that taxpayers know that those who would squander their money are held accountable, but also to send a message to other government employees that such behavior will not be tolerated. The bill also increases oversight by providing that each agency Inspector General periodically conduct risk assessments and audits to identify fraud and improper use of government charge cards. We have had great success working with Inspectors General using techniques like data mining to reveal instances of improper use of government charge cards. Having this information on an ongoing basis will help maintain and strengthen a rigorous system of internal controls to prevent future instances of waste, fraud, and abuse with government charge cards.

This legislation has been revised a number of times with considerable input from the GAO as well as the Inspector General community and other stakeholders. In crafting the very carefully thought out bill before us today, I have appreciated the help and support provided by Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Member Collins, who have again joined me as original cosponsors of this bill. The version I have introduced today is the same bill that passed the Senate in the last Congress and I look forward to seeing it pass both houses of Congress and enacted into law in the very near future. That day, the American taxpayers will be able to rest just a little easier knowing that at least one avenue to potentially waste their hard earned money has been blocked.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Save More Tomorrow Act of 2012. This act seeks to make a modest, commonsense modification to the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which is the tax- deferred, defined contribution plan for Federal employees, similar to private sector 401(k) plans.

The Save More Tomorrow Act would build on the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act of 2009, which was enacted with support from large, bipartisan majorities in Congress. Under the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act, new Federal employees are automatically enrolled in the TSP unless they opt out, with a default employee contribution rate of 3 percent of basic pay. This legislation would adjust the TSP's automatic enrollment mechanism to allow it to automatically increase employee contributions, unless the employee chooses a different contribution rate. To accomplish this, the bill authorizes the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the agency that administers the TSP, to pair the current auto enrollment at 3 percent with automatic escalation of 1 percent per year, for at least 2 consecutive years following the first year of enrollment. This promotes a goal of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, often referred to as FERSA, which was designed to encourage Federal employees to save at least 5 percent of their pay in the TSP.

This ``three plus one plus one'' model closely mirrors the model Congress

prescribed for the private sector in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which Mr. Boehner of Ohio introduced, the House and Senate passed with significant bipartisan support, and President George W. Bush signed into law. In enacting the Pension Protection Act, Congress endorsed pairing automatic enrollment with automatic escalation, by incentivizing companies to automatically enroll employees in 401(k) plans at no less than a 3 percent savings rate, and automatically escalate that rate by at least 1 percent for at least 3 years.

This act is informed by rigorous oversight I have conducted as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. For example, at a recent Subcommittee hearing, Dr. Brigitte Madrian, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and leading expert on employer-sponsored retirement savings plans, stated, ``the evidence from the private sector is that automatic escalation is, in fact, extremely effective at increasing employee savings rates. And you asked specifically is this [automatic escalation] something that should be considered for the Thrift Savings Plan, and I would say absolutely.''

To preempt any possible misconceptions or misunderstandings that may arise regarding this act, I want to be clear from the outset about which employees the Save More Tomorrow Act applies to, and the voluntary nature of the bill. Since this act builds on the statutory framework established by the Thrift Savings Enhancement Act, it only applies to newly hired Federal employees who are eligible to participate in the TSP's automatic enrollment feature. Additionally, just like the TSP's auto enrollment feature, auto escalation authorized by this act would be voluntary, and allow participants to terminate default contributions, or change contribution rates, at any time.

This bill has a limited, targeted scope. It would increase the savings only of the small percentage of new employees who enroll in the TSP, but do not raise their contribution rate enough to reach the goal Congress established with FERSA of having most Federal employees contributing at least 5 percent of basic pay. Under the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act, an impressive 97.2 percent of new Federal employees are enrolling in the TSP--82,632 Federal employees have been automatically enrolled in the TSP since the practice began in August 2010. Most of those employees increase their contributions far above the default rate of 3 percent. These enrollees boast an average TSP savings rate of 12.1 percent. Currently, only about 9 percent of employees in the Federal Employee Retirement System enrolled in the TSP contribute less than 5 percent.

Of course, one must not confuse this act's limited scope with the potential benefits. From the most recent survey of TSP participants, we know that just like in the private sector, low-income workers who can least afford to forgo matching contributions are the most likely to do so. Lower-income Federal employees are more than twice as likely as higher-income employees to cite automatic enrollment as the reason they are contributing to the TSP. Many employees who contribute less than 5 percent are not even aware of the benefits of increasing the amount they save--18 percent of this group reported they did not contribute 5 percent because they were unaware agencies matched contributions dollar-for-dollar on the first 3 percent of basic pay, and 50 cents on the dollar for the next 2 percent.

Today's Federal workers must plan carefully to ensure their retirement security. Fortunately, the vast majority of the Federal employees are responsibly saving for retirement, exhibiting average savings rates that are far greater than the private sector. However, I am concerned that the most financially vulnerable Federal employees, individuals earning less than $25,000 a year, are saving at a lower rate that will hinder their ability to retire with dignity. We should build on the success of the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act by making it as easy as possible for employees to increase their contributions.

The Save More Tomorrow Act is a limited, yet effective legislative response to do just this. Informed by rigorous data from real world experiences in the private sector, this act represents the best in serious, evidence-based policymaking. The modest authorities provided by the Save More Tomorrow Act will enhance the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's ability to meet FERSA's goal of encouraging TSP contributions of 5 percent of pay. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Save More Tomorrow Act of 2012. This act seeks to make a modest, commonsense modification to the Thrift Savings Plan, or TSP, which is the tax- deferred, defined contribution plan for Federal employees, similar to private sector 401(k) plans.

The Save More Tomorrow Act would build on the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act of 2009, which was enacted with support from large, bipartisan majorities in Congress. Under the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act, new Federal employees are automatically enrolled in the TSP unless they opt out, with a default employee contribution rate of 3 percent of basic pay. This legislation would adjust the TSP's automatic enrollment mechanism to allow it to automatically increase employee contributions, unless the employee chooses a different contribution rate. To accomplish this, the bill authorizes the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the agency that administers the TSP, to pair the current auto enrollment at 3 percent with automatic escalation of 1 percent per year, for at least 2 consecutive years following the first year of enrollment. This promotes a goal of the Federal Employees' Retirement System Act of 1986, often referred to as FERSA, which was designed to encourage Federal employees to save at least 5 percent of their pay in the TSP.

This ``three plus one plus one'' model closely mirrors the model Congress

prescribed for the private sector in the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which Mr. Boehner of Ohio introduced, the House and Senate passed with significant bipartisan support, and President George W. Bush signed into law. In enacting the Pension Protection Act, Congress endorsed pairing automatic enrollment with automatic escalation, by incentivizing companies to automatically enroll employees in 401(k) plans at no less than a 3 percent savings rate, and automatically escalate that rate by at least 1 percent for at least 3 years.

This act is informed by rigorous oversight I have conducted as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia. For example, at a recent Subcommittee hearing, Dr. Brigitte Madrian, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and leading expert on employer-sponsored retirement savings plans, stated, ``the evidence from the private sector is that automatic escalation is, in fact, extremely effective at increasing employee savings rates. And you asked specifically is this [automatic escalation] something that should be considered for the Thrift Savings Plan, and I would say absolutely.''

To preempt any possible misconceptions or misunderstandings that may arise regarding this act, I want to be clear from the outset about which employees the Save More Tomorrow Act applies to, and the voluntary nature of the bill. Since this act builds on the statutory framework established by the Thrift Savings Enhancement Act, it only applies to newly hired Federal employees who are eligible to participate in the TSP's automatic enrollment feature. Additionally, just like the TSP's auto enrollment feature, auto escalation authorized by this act would be voluntary, and allow participants to terminate default contributions, or change contribution rates, at any time.

This bill has a limited, targeted scope. It would increase the savings only of the small percentage of new employees who enroll in the TSP, but do not raise their contribution rate enough to reach the goal Congress established with FERSA of having most Federal employees contributing at least 5 percent of basic pay. Under the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act, an impressive 97.2 percent of new Federal employees are enrolling in the TSP--82,632 Federal employees have been automatically enrolled in the TSP since the practice began in August 2010. Most of those employees increase their contributions far above the default rate of 3 percent. These enrollees boast an average TSP savings rate of 12.1 percent. Currently, only about 9 percent of employees in the Federal Employee Retirement System enrolled in the TSP contribute less than 5 percent.

Of course, one must not confuse this act's limited scope with the potential benefits. From the most recent survey of TSP participants, we know that just like in the private sector, low-income workers who can least afford to forgo matching contributions are the most likely to do so. Lower-income Federal employees are more than twice as likely as higher-income employees to cite automatic enrollment as the reason they are contributing to the TSP. Many employees who contribute less than 5 percent are not even aware of the benefits of increasing the amount they save--18 percent of this group reported they did not contribute 5 percent because they were unaware agencies matched contributions dollar-for-dollar on the first 3 percent of basic pay, and 50 cents on the dollar for the next 2 percent.

Today's Federal workers must plan carefully to ensure their retirement security. Fortunately, the vast majority of the Federal employees are responsibly saving for retirement, exhibiting average savings rates that are far greater than the private sector. However, I am concerned that the most financially vulnerable Federal employees, individuals earning less than $25,000 a year, are saving at a lower rate that will hinder their ability to retire with dignity. We should build on the success of the Thrift Savings Plan Enhancement Act by making it as easy as possible for employees to increase their contributions.

The Save More Tomorrow Act is a limited, yet effective legislative response to do just this. Informed by rigorous data from real world experiences in the private sector, this act represents the best in serious, evidence-based policymaking. The modest authorities provided by the Save More Tomorrow Act will enhance the Federal Retirement Thrift Investment Board's ability to meet FERSA's goal of encouraging TSP contributions of 5 percent of pay. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. President, each year an estimated 2,550 children in the United States are diagnosed with metabolism disorders. For the rest of their lives they will need modified foods that do not have the nutrients their body is incapable of processing. They may also require supplementation with pharmacological doses of vitamins and amino acids. The good news is that with treatment they can lead normal, productive lives. But without these foods and supplements, patients can become severely brain-damaged and hospitalized.

Through bipartisan efforts, we have made great strides in improving how quickly babies with these disorders are diagnosed. Newborn screening has made a tremendous difference in the early diagnosis of metabolic disorders. However, affordable and accessible treatment options remain out of reach for too many Americans. Medical foods and supplements which are necessary for treatment may not be covered by insurance policies and can be prohibitively expensive for too many families. For those with a metabolic disorder, medical foods are critical in treatment, just as other conditions are treated with pills or injections. The sporadic insurance coverage of treatment is a problem. In response, over 35 States have enacted laws to enforce coverage of medical foods. However, too many loopholes remain and federal legislation is necessary to ensure that these individuals receive what they need to stay well. It is time that we get treatment for those patients lost in insurance loopholes.

The Medical Foods Equity Act follows the April 2009 recommendations of the U.S. Health and Human Services, Secretary's Advisory Committee on Heritable Disorders in Newborns and Children. It will ensure coverage of medical foods and necessary supplements for individuals with disorders as recommended by the Advisory Committee and, most importantly, peace of mind for those families affected by inborn errors of metabolism.

The lack of medical food coverage available to families has a significant impact on their lives. With the current situation of varying regulations between States and insurance providers, even families with coverage find themselves living in fear that a change in insurance provider will lead to reduced or nonexistent coverage. Too many Americans across the country are struggling to access the treatment they need for this type of disorder.

Take the story of Donna McGrath from Wilmington, Massachusetts. Donna has two daughters with phenylketonuria, PKU, and she speaks eloquently about the frustration she experienced after her employer switched insurance plans. Because medical foods are not listed along with other necessary medicines, Donna was forced to navigate a long list mostly made up of durable medical equipment providers unequipped to help her. Even when she finally found a pharmacy that could order the formula, she was told that they required an upfront payment because they were wary of not being reimbursed by insurance companies. In Donna's own words, she was dismayed at ``having that feeling like you're being held hostage every time a change may occur in your insurance or carrier.'' Medical treatment for inborn error of metabolism disorders is just as necessary as treatment for other conditions--like insulin for a diabetic or chemotherapy for a cancer patient.

As newborn screening and medical advances continue to improve the ability of those born with an inborn error of metabolism to lead full, healthy lives, we must make sure that the necessary treatments are available. That is why Senator Casey and I are introducing the Medical Foods Equity Act. Our legislation would require medically necessary foods and supplements to be included in the definition of essential health benefits for qualified health plans, covered by federal health programs, Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP, TRICARE, and by the private health insurance market, fully insured group health plans, self-insured group health plans, and non-group health plans. The legislation requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a determination of minimum coverage levels for medically necessary foods and supplements for certain rare metabolic conditions.

I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Medical Foods Equity Act and who have endorsed it today, including the National PKU Alliance, the Save Babies Through Screening Foundation, the National Organization for Rare Disorders, NORD, Genetic Alliance, and the American Dietetic Association.

The Medical Foods Equity Act will close existing loopholes in coverage and provide the parity in coverage these families deserve. It is my hope that we can move forward with this bill in a bipartisan manner. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.