Floor Statements

Mr. President--I rise today to introduce a bill that would establish a capability within the State Department Science Advisor's Office to assess science and technology outside the United States.

Over the past two years I have traveled to Taiwan, China and India to better understand why these developing countries' economies were growing so rapidly. I learned that in all cases the primary reason for their robust growth was the emergence of a well-trained science and engineering workforce that tied directly into their highly competitive innovation economies.

For instance, Taiwan now leads the world in general purpose foundry computer chip facilities, controlling about 70 percent of the world market. A recent Defense Science Board Report entitled ``High Performance Microchip Supply'' notes that by the end of 2005 there will be 59 300mm chip fabrication plants with only 16 of these located in the United States. The number of U.S. plants has remained constant for the past two years, so as the number of Asian foundries has risen, the share of these advanced chip making facilities has declined from 30 to 20 percent. This report also notes that capital expenditures in the U.S. chip industry has fallen from a high of 42 percent in 2001 to 33 percent in 2004. Conversely, Taiwan's investment has increased from 15 percent in 2002 to 20 percent of the world's capital expenditure in chip facilities and now leads Korea, Japan, and Europe.

There is a good explanation as to why countries such as Taiwan are rapidly rising in the high-technology world. Since 1984 Taiwan has made steady increases in their investments in the building of science based research parks. Hsinchu, their flagship science park, now has over 324 high technology companies, generating over $22 billion annually in gross revenues, and employing a high technology work force exceeding 100,000. This science park is bounded by two universities and contains six national laboratories. Taiwan is now building science parks in the middle and south of the island to concentrate on other fields such as nanoscience, optoelectronics, and biotechnology. These parks are the result of a number of carefully crafted government policies and incentives dealing with taxes, real estate, and fundamental research. In the area of technology transfer, the Taiwan government helped set up the world famous Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI) which has over 5,000 scientists working to spin out laboratory ideas across the ``valley of death'' into new industries. Remarkably, the two chip foundry companies which now control 70 percent of the world's foundry market were launched from ITRI. As a result of this rapid economic growth, Taiwan's technical universities are now world class with their own excellent graduate programs. The reason they are side-by-side with these large science parks is to supply a steady stream of talented researchers.

Recently, our National Academy of Sciences noted in its report, ``International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars,'' that Taiwan's domestic economic growth has led to fewer Taiwanese students applying to U.S. graduate schools. For the past two decades, Taiwan's students were the core supply of talent in our innovative science and engineering graduate school programs. Of equal concern, the successful Taiwanese scholars who attended graduate school in the United States 20 or 30 years ago are now returning home and giving back their

professional wisdom to advance on their birth country's high-technology leadership.

This same story holds true for India. My visit there this January yielded similar observations on their rapidly developing high technology sector. Since 1990, India has invested in the development of software and technology parks and currently has over 40 spread throughout the country. These parks were responsible for much of the high technology development in software and biotechnology. Indeed, multinational companies such as Intel, Microsoft and GE have built large research centers there to tap into the intellectual power educated at the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of Science. GE's Jack Welch R&D Center in Bangalore has 2,300 Ph.D.'s conducting research in all aspects of their product lines. India's GE center now directs their plastics plant in Indiana on how to operate more efficiently in real time over the internet. Intel's research center has 2,000 product engineers designing the chips Americans will use in our computers and home entertainment centers next holiday season. The chips designed at Intel's Bangalore center are fabricated at their plant in Albuquerque. The tables have turned rather dramatically. We used to design the chips here and then they were manufactured overseas.

When I visited Infosys, one of India's largest software companies, I was advised that in 2004 they received 1.2 million on-line employment applications, gave a standardized test to 300,000 job seekers interviewed 30,000, and then hired 10,000. They expect to repeat this same process again this year, which illustrates the deep pool of well trained talent that India has available. A number of the India's leading biotech entrepreneurs I visited with told me they weren't so much afraid of losing talent to the U.S. as they were to Singapore, with its burgeoning government investments in biotechnology.

Similar to Taiwan, the National Academy report also documents a rapid drop in Indian student applications to U.S. graduate schools. India's rapidly developing economy encourages the best and brightest students to stay home and study in India rather than consider U.S. graduate schools. For the past 20 years, we have relied on this influx of the cream of the academic crop I from India and Taiwan to form the high- tech startup companies of Silicon Valley.

The stark question before us--whether it involves India, Taiwan, China, or Singapore is: are we missing the bigger picture? By the time we realize we have a problem in innovation and our investments in science and engineering investments, will it be too late? Will these Pacific Rim countries have climbed past us up the value chain, and will they be able to produce equally innovative high technology product at far cheaper costs?

The bill I am introducing today, may be small, but the consequences are enormous. This measure proposes to authorize a capability in the office of the Science Advisor to the Secretary of State to conduct assessments of the science and technology capabilities in other countries such as India, China and Taiwan.

The director of this office will report to the Secretary of State's Science Advisor. The office will to the maximum extent possible utilize firms that can conduct science and technology assessments in the country of interest to minimize and augment the federal staff. That is why I have proposed giving the office generous contracting authorities with respect to soliciting contracts and disbursing funds so that it may move quickly to gather information on certain topics so that we as a nation are not caught by surprise by an advance in a high technology area.

Additionally, this legislation authorizes a Foreign Science and Technology Assessment Panel whose purpose is to look over the horizon and choose topics and technologies to assess, as well as to evaluate the timeliness and quality of the reports generated. These reports are to be publicly available, benefiting not only our government by ensuring the nation's leadership in science and engineering, but also our private sector, especially those high technology firms that must successfully compete in a fierce global market. The panel members, to be selected by the Secretary of State in consultation with the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, will be distinguished leaders who have expert knowledge about our competitors' capabilities in science and technology.

High technology moves at a rapid rate, and every sign I picked up from my science and technology trips to China, India, Taiwan and Japan indicates to me that our government seems to be asleep at the switch here at home with regard to understanding how quickly these countries are moving up the value chain from simple manufacturing to sustained efforts in science and engineering that matches if not exceeds us in the innovation cycle. This bill, while a small step forward, will serve to ensure that we constantly assess where other countries are in that value chain and to make sure we are doing everything possible to maintain our leadership in fields of high technology.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce bipartisan legislation entitled ``Ending the Medicare Disability Waiting Period Act of 2005'' with Senators DeWine, Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes. This legislation would phase-out the current 2-year waiting period that people with disabilities must endure after qualifying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). In the interim or as the waiting period is being phased out, the bill would also create a process by which the Secretary can immediately waive the waiting period for people with life-threatening illnesses.

When Medicare was expanded in 1972 to include people with significant disabilities, lawmakers created the 24-month waiting period. According to a July 2003 report from the Commonwealth Fund, it is estimated that over 1.2 million SSDI beneficiaries are in the Medicare waiting period at any given time, ``all of whom are unable to work because of their disability and most of whom have serious health problems, low incomes, and limited access to health insurance.''

The stated reason at the time was to limit the fiscal cost of the provision. However, I would assert that there is no reason, be it fiscal or moral, to tell people that they must wait longer than 2 years after becoming severely disabled before we provide them access to much needed health care.

In fact, it is important to note that there really are actually three waiting periods that are imposed upon people seeking to qualify for SSDI. First, there is the disability determination process through the Social Security Administration, which often takes many months or even longer than a year in some cases. Second, once a worker has been certified as having a severe or permanent disability, they must wait an additional 5 months before receiving their first SSDI check. And third, after receiving that first SSDI check, there is the 2-year period that people must wait before their Medicare coverage begins.

What happens to the health and well-being of people waiting more than 2\1/2\ years before they finally receive critically needed Medicare coverage? According to Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, which has conducted 2 important studies on the issue, ``Individuals in the waiting period for Medicare suffer from a broad range of debilitating diseases and are in urgent need of appropriate medical care to manage their conditions. Eliminating the 2-year wait would ensure access to care for those already on the way to Medicare.''

Again, we are talking about individuals that have been determined to be unable to engage in any ``substantial, gainful activity'' because of either a physical or mental impairment that is expected to result in death or to continue for at least 12 months. These are people that, by definition, are in more need of health coverage than anybody else in our society. Of the 1.2 million people stuck in the 2-year waiting period at any given time, it is estimated that one-third, or 400,000, are left completely uninsured. The consequences are unacceptable and are, in fact, dire.

In fact, various studies show that death rates among SSDI recipients are highest during the first 2 years of enrollment while waiting to be covered by Medicare. For example, the Commonwealth Fund report, entitled ``Elimination of Medicare's Waiting Period for Seriously Disabled Adults: Impact on Coverage and Costs,'' 4 percent of these people die during the waiting period. In other words, it is estimated that of the estimated 400,000 uninsured disabled Americans in the waiting period at any given time, 16,000 of them will die awaiting Medicare coverage. Let me repeat . . . 16,000 of the 400,000 uninsured disabled in the waiting period at any given moment will die while waiting for Medicare coverage to begin.

Moreover, this does not factor in the serious health problems that others experience while waiting for Medicare coverage during the 2-year period. Although there is no direct data on the profile of SSDI beneficiaries in the 2-year waiting period, the Commonwealth Fund has undertaken a separate analysis of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey for 1998 to get a good sense of the demographic characteristics, income, and health conditions of this group.

According to the analysis, ``. . . 45 percent of nonelderly Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities had incomes below the Federal poverty line, and 77 percent had incomes below 200 percent of poverty. Fifth- nine percent reported that they were in fair or poor health; of this group, more than 90 percent reported that they suffered from one or more chronic illnesses, including arthritis (52 percent), hypertension (46 percent), mental disorder (36 percent), heart condition (35 percent), chronic lung disease (26 percent), cancer (20 percent), diabetes (19 percent), and stroke (12 percent).''

To ascertain the impact the waiting period has on the lives of these citizens, the Commonwealth Fund and the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation conducted a follow-up to ``gain insight into the experiences of people with disabilities under age 65 in the Medicare 2-year waiting period.'' According to that second report entitled ``Waiting for Medicare: Experiences of Uninsured People with Disabilities in the Two- Year Waiting Period for Medicare'' in October 2004, ``Most of these individuals must invariably get by with some combination of living one day at a time, assertiveness, faith, and sheer luck.''

One person in the waiting period with a spinal cord injury from Atlanta, Georgia, seeking medical treatment for their condition was told to simply ``try not to get sick for 2 years.'' As the individual said in response, ``None of us TRIED to become disabled.''

The people that we have spoken to in the waiting period, since the introduction of this legislation last year, talk about foregoing critically needed medical treatment, stopping medications and therapy, feeling dismayed and depressed about their lives and future, and feeling a loss of control over their lives and independence while in the waiting period.

These testimonials and appeals in support of this legislation are often emotional and intense. Some describe the waiting period as a ``living nightmare'' and appropriately ask how it is possible that their government is doing this to them.

In fact, some have had the unfortunate fate of having received SSI and Medicaid coverage, applied for SSDI, and then lost their Medicaid coverage because they were not aware that the change in income, when they received SSDI, would push them over the financial limits for Medicaid. In such a case, and let me emphasize this point, the government is effectively taking their health care coverage away because they are so severely disabled.

Therefore, for some in the waiting period, their battle is often as much with the government as it is with their medical condition, disease, or disability.

Nobody could possible think this makes any sense.

House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas questioned the rationale of the waiting period in a press conference on April 29, 2005.

As the Medicare Rights Center has said, ``By forcing Americans with disabilities to wait 24 months for Medicare coverage, the current law effectively sentences these people to inadequate health care, poverty, or death . . . Since disability can strike anyone, at any point in life, the 24-month waiting period should be of concern to everyone, not just the millions of Americans with disabilities today.''

Although elimination of the Medicare waiting period will certainly increase Medicare costs, it is important

to note that there will be some corresponding decrease in Medicaid costs. Medicaid, which is financed by both Federal and State governments, often provides coverage for a subset of disabled Americans in the waiting period, as long as they meet certain income and asset limits. Income limits are typically at or below the poverty level, including at just 74 percent of the poverty line in New Mexico, with assets generally limited to just $2,000 for individuals and $3,000 for couples.

The Commonwealth Fund estimates that, of the 1.26 million people in the waiting period, 40 percent are enrolled in Medicaid. As a result, the Commonwealth Fund estimates in the study that Federal Medicaid savings would offset nearly 30 percent of the increased costs. Furthermore, States, which have been struggling financially with their Medicaid programs, would reap a windfall that would help them better manage their Medicaid programs.

Furthermore, from a continuity of care point of view, it makes little sense that somebody with disabilities must leave their job and their health providers associated with that plan, move on the Medicaid to often have a different set of providers, to then switch to Medicare and yet another set of providers. The cost, both financial and personal, of not providing access to care or poorly coordinated care services for these seriously ill people during the waiting period may be greater in many cases than providing health coverage.

And finally, private-sector employers and employees in those risk- pools would also benefit from the passage of the bill. As the 2003 report notes, ``. . . to the extent that disabled adults rely on coverage through their prior employer or their spouse's employer, eliminating the waiting period would also produce savings to employers who provide this coverage.''

To address concerns about costs and immediate impact on the Medicare program, the legislation phases out the waiting period over a 10-year period. In the interim, the legislation would create a process by which others with life-threatening illnesses could also get an exception to the waiting period. Congress has previously extended such an exception to the waiting period for individuals with amyothrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, and for hospice services. The ALS exception passed the Congress in December 2000 and went into effect July 1, 2001. Thus, the legislation would extend the exception to all people with life-threatening illnesses in the waiting period.

I would like to thank Senator DeWine and the other original cosponsors, including Senators Corzine, Durbin, Schumer, Johnson, Cantwell, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, Clinton, Kerry, Mikulski, Akaka, Salazar, and Sarbanes, for supporting this critically important legislation. Furthermore, I would like to commend Representative Gene Green of Texas for his introduction of the companion bill in the House of Representatives and for his work, diligence, and commitment to this issue.

I urge passage of this legislation and ask unanimous consent that a fact sheet, which includes a list of original supporting organizations for the legislation, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to add my name as a cosponsor of this resolution to recognize Hispanic Media Week. The resolution provides an opportunity to recognize the vital contribution the Hispanic media makes not only to the Hispanic community but to the Nation at large.

As the Hispanic community grows in numbers, business influence, and political power an integral part of their success has been the Hispanic media. Currently there are almost 600 Hispanic publishers in the United States with a combined readership of over 30 million. These publications represent Spanish, bilingual, and English daily, weekly, and periodic newspapers and magazines. Many of these publishers have persevered through years and even decades of low circulation numbers and industrywide skepticism to emerge today as a dynamic and growing segment of the publishing industry.

The number of Hispanic publishers continues to grow larger and play an important role in getting vital information to this important segment of the population. In disseminating vital information to the Hispanic community, Hispanic publishers have performed a service not only to their own communities but to each and every community that strives towards a free and open exchange of ideas in the embodiment of the American dream.

Madam President, I thank my friend from New York and congratulate him on his leadership on this very important issue.

I find it very unfortunate that disagreements about judicial appointments have brought us to the point where the majority is ready to take away the longstanding right of each and every Senator to unlimited debate. That is a very major change in the way business has traditionally and historically been done in the Senate.

This is a confrontation that could easily have been avoided by the President and his legal counsel if they had been willing to follow what I understand to be the normal practice that historically has prevailed and should prevail. Someone asked: What is that normal practice? It is simply the practice of consulting with the Senators most involved in the nominating process before making a final decision on which individuals to nominate.

In the case of judicial nominees for Federal court positions in my State of New Mexico, and also positions to be filled on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals that are designated for New Mexico attorneys, I have been contacted, and I have been asked if I had objections to perspective nominees in each case before a final decision to nominate has been made. And that is not just in the last year or 2, this is over the 22-plus years I have served in the Senate. As far as I can remember, I have been afforded that courtesy each time. We, the Senate, have confirmed; and Presidents Reagan and Bush, Sr., and Clinton and now George W. Bush have nominated many individuals for the Federal court in my State during that time.

It is also my understanding that more often than not the chair and the

ranking member of the Judiciary Committee have been afforded that same courtesy prior to the nomination of individuals to court of appeals positions or to a Supreme Court position. Much of the current confrontation and rancor could have been sidestepped if that practice had been followed with respect to the nominees who are currently in dispute. Unfortunately, this President has chosen a different course.

Rather than consulting before a nomination is made, the White House has chosen to make nominations that it knows will be highly controversial, in some cases where it knows that the Senators from the nominee's State are strongly opposed to that nominee. Where nominations have been blocked during one Congress, the 108th Congress, last Congress, the President has chosen to renominate those same individuals in the succeeding Congress.

Madam President, this is not a strategy to unite rather than divide the country. This is a strategy to split and to polarize the Senate and the American people, and it is clearly having that exact effect.

Given where we are, I, like most of my colleagues, feel obliged to come to the Senate floor and speak on this so-called nuclear option. In my view, this is a misguided effort that will not only harm the Senate, it will also have a significant impact on the checks and balances that our Founding Fathers envisioned. I am disappointed that the majority leader has decided to pursue this course of action. I regret that he has repeatedly rejected the minority leader's offers to compromise on the issue.

There are two distinct issues I want to discuss briefly today. The first is the manner in which the change is being made, the idea that the majority can simply change longstanding Senate rules whenever it believes it would be expedient to do so. I find that notion deeply troubling. We are a nation of laws, and our institutions need to reflect this.

The second issue I want to discuss is the merits of the proposal and the impact of eliminating the ability to filibuster. The use of the filibuster not only ensures that minority views are respected in the Senate, it also plays an important role in checking the power of the executive branch and in ensuring that the judiciary remains independent.

Let me take a moment to briefly describe what this nuclear option entails. I recognize that discussing rules and procedures is not an exciting topic, but it is important that the American public understand precisely what is being done. This is not about whether every nominee should get an up-or-down vote. It is about whether it is acceptable for the majority party to disregard longstanding Senate rules in order to get its way in each and every case that comes before the Senate.

Senate rule V states that:

The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to

the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in

these rules.

In accordance with Senate rule XXII, any such change can only be made with the approval of two-thirds of all Senators elected. That is 67 Senators.

Requiring continuity of the rules from Congress to Congress, and requiring that changes to the rules meet a threshold vote well above a simple majority, has a very straightforward purpose. It ensures that the rules governing the Senate remain constant, that they are not changed whenever one party believes the rules are hampering their ability to get their way in the short term.

Some in the majority party have complained that it is necessary to change the rules with respect to use of the filibuster on judicial nominees because in their view the current 60-vote requirement to end debate is too high. I have no objection to debating that issue and bringing it to a vote. Indeed, throughout the Senate's history there have been a variety of proposals to modify the rules governing the filibuster.

For example, in 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required to end debate from 67 to 60. In 1995, I supported a proposal Senator Harkin offered which did not pass but would have revised the procedure. So why is not the majority leader bringing this proposal, which he is now threatening to make, up for a vote under normal procedure? Simply put, he does not have the votes to pass the measure if we stick by the rules of the Senate, the 67-vote rules of the Senate.

So his proposal is simple: If you do not have the votes to pass the proposal using the rules as they exist, then make up your own rules so you can pass it. Under this procedural maneuver, if the Senate votes to not end debate on one of the disputed nominees, the majority leader intends to make a point of order requesting that the Presiding Chair, who will likely be the Vice President, rule that only 51 votes are needed to confirm appellate and Supreme Court nominees.

Now, all of us know, and it is very clear to everyone who has studied this issue, that is not what the Parliamentarian would rule. The Parliamentarian has said just the opposite. Democrats will object, but the ruling would be upheld by a simple majority vote. It is my understanding this would be the first time that we have changed the rules of the Senate without following the prescribed procedure for doing so in the rules that we have adopted. This would entail overruling the Senate Parliamentarian.

Madam President, I have to ask, what is the meaning of a rule if it is permissible to break it when one disagrees with the outcome that would result if the rule were followed? If the majority leader wants to try to modify the filibuster, he has the right to attempt that, but he should do so within the parameters of the Senate rules. It is dangerous to set a precedent of ignoring those rules that govern how we go about changing rules.

Indeed, if one rule can be changed this way with a simple majority vote, why not others as well?

The majority leader has argued that the Senate's record of processing the President's judicial nominees is so egregious that it justifies breaking the rules and disregarding over 200 years of precedent in order to get more nominees confirmed. Let's examine this record. My colleague from New York has already discussed at length the number of judges, appellate court judges, district court judges, we have approved in this Senate since this President has been in office.

We have the lowest vacancy rate in the Federal judiciary since President Reagan was in office. The Senate has confirmed 95 percent of the President's nominees. In addition, Democrats have offered to bring up several of the disputed nominees for consideration, which would bring the confirmation rate closer to 98 percent. Unfortunately, the majority leader has rejected that proposed compromise.

Some have also asserted that Democrats are charting new ground in filibustering judicial nominees. Frankly, this is just incorrect. It is contrary to the history of the Senate. Republicans did filibuster Abe Fortas in 1968 when he was nominated to be the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The filibuster was successful. He ultimately withdrew his nomination from consideration.

I agree we have an obligation to process the President's judicial nominees in a fair and judicious manner, and, as the record demonstrates, that is exactly what we have been trying to do.

However, I do understand the general frustration surrounding the processing of judicial nominees. During the Clinton administration, the Republican majority, during several of those years, killed over 60 nominees through a variety of delay tactics, mostly by refusing to give hearings in the Judiciary Committee. As a result, many of those nominees never got a chance to have a fair and open debate about their qualifications, much less a vote on the Senate floor.

I believe we should look for ways to improve the confirmation process so that it is conducted in a more bipartisan and constructive manner. But exercising the so-called nuclear option is not a step in the right direction. Let's be clear on what this is about. It is about setting the stage for the debate over the next Supreme Court Justice. It is about putting in place a procedure that would limit the ability of Democrats and moderate Republicans to influence the debate. There would be little need to consult or to compromise if the nominee could be pushed through the Senate with a straight majority vote.

As I have discussed, I strongly disagree with the tactics that have been

chosen here to make these changes. With regard to the merits of the proposal to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees, I would like to take a moment to elaborate on the profound implications of moving forward with this effort. I believe such a change would be not only detrimental to the Senate as an institution but will also result in significant deterioration of the checks and balances that ensure the independence of our judiciary.

Having a procedure in place that allows 40 Senators to keep a nominee or legislation from being adopted serves many purposes. Most important, it facilitates compromise by guaranteeing the minority a voice in the legislative process. Unlike in the House of Representatives, where legislation can be easily pushed through with a simple majority vote, the Senate is an institution where deliberation and compromise are absolutely essential.

Forcing Senators to achieve common ground in order to complete the people's work is something that should be encouraged. Bipartisanship has been in short supply in recent years, and we need to be looking for ways to work together to address the challenges we face in America.

I have had the privilege of representing the people of New Mexico for over 22 years now in the Senate. I recognize the importance of working across the aisle to achieve results. Earlier this week, we held the first of several hearings on comprehensive energy legislation to try to mark up legislation in that area. I am extremely encouraged by how members of the committee from both parties have been working together. It is my hope that bipartisanship and sense of compromise can be adopted elsewhere in the Senate. This exemplifies how we should be facilitating more compromise between the majority and minority parties.

The filibuster is not only an important check on the majority power within the Senate, but it is also an essential check on the executive branch. Article II, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides the Senate and the President shall share the power to appoint judicial nominees. The President is granted the authority to nominate. The Senate is vested with the authority to provide its advice and consent. This is a serious constitutional duty. I do not believe the Senate should be relegated to the role of a glorified rubberstamp. That is not what the American people want, not what the Founding Fathers envisioned.

The prospect of a filibuster forces the President to submit nominees to the Senate who will be able to garner the support of more than a simple majority of that President's own party. There are plenty of well-qualified, conservative lawyers and judges who would easily be confirmed by this Senate. In fact, the Senate has confirmed over 200 of them since this President has been in office. At the beginning of this Congress, the President chose to resubmit several of the most controversial nominees who lacked widespread support, rather than to heed the concerns that had been raised about their nominations. The Senate has coequal responsibilities in the appointment process. It is important for the administration to recognize this when it decides which nominees to send to the Senate for consideration.

Without the filibuster, the President would essentially be free to appoint whomever he wants to the Federal judiciary with very little restraint. This would threaten the independence of the judiciary, which is charged with checking the actions of the executive and legislative branches, by allowing a President to stack the courts with individuals willing to advance a particular agenda or ideology.

If the same party controls the Senate and the White House, as is the case today, the ability to filibuster is a primary restraint on the majority party of using its power in the nomination and confirmation process. As the Framers recognized, it is reasonable to require that a lifetime appointee have the support of a substantial percentage of Senators who have been elected.

There is a reason why the Framers granted the Senate and not the House of Representatives the constitutional authority to provide advice and consent. The Senate's procedures ensure extended debate and respect for minority views, which in turn facilitate compromise and moderation. I personally believe that having qualified and reasonable judges in the Federal judiciary, regardless of political party, who interpret the law objectively and in accordance with mainstream legal theory is a good thing. These are lifetime appointments, which deserve rigorous debate and substantial scrutiny. This scrutiny would be significantly diminished if the majority party could appoint whoever they want to the judiciary without concern for the views of the minority. And the independence of the judiciary would be threatened if judges approach their work with a particular concern for carrying out the will of the party in power at that moment.

It is not surprising that a President would seek to expand his authority in the appointment process. But it is disappointing to think that the Senate might accede to this and abrogate its own constitutional authority in exercising its obligation to provide advice and consent.

Lastly, the proponents of the nuclear option have said they only want to eliminate the filibuster with regard to nominees, not with regard to legislation. But nothing about their reasoning is unique to nominees. If this can be done with regard to judicial nominees, it can certainly be done with regard to executive branch nominees as well. And there is no logic for arguing it cannot be done with regard to legislation.

As I have stated, I have many concerns about employing this tactic and disregarding Senate tradition. I urge my colleagues across the aisle to seriously consider the ramifications of this so-called nuclear option. It is not good for the Senate, it is not good for the delicate checks and balances that govern our Government, and it is not in the interest of the American people.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Frist, Cantwell, Lugar, Santorum, Collins, Cochran, Murray, and Feinstein named the ``Covering Kids Act of 2005.'' This legislation is intended to improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted toward children and pregnant women and is very similar to language included in legislation I introduced in the 107th Congress entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act'' and earlier this year with Senator Lugar entitled ``Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act.''

The legislation provides $100 million in grants over the next two years to community and faith-based organizations, safety net organizations such as community health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, tribal providers or organizations, schools, or State or local governments for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts.

The bill includes language from legislation introduced by Senator Lugar and me that would promote what is called ``Express Lane Eligibility.'' This approach uses two strategies to find and enroll eligible but uninsured children by: 1. targeting large numbers of eligible children in other public benefit programs like school lunch and food stamps; 2. expediting their enrollment in health coverage by using income-eligibility information already submitted by parents when they enrolled their children in these other public programs.

In combination, these two common-sense ideas could have a dramatic impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our Nation's children, which we must do.

According to the American College of Physicians, uninsured children, when compared to insured children, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental, or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury.

Another study estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent. I would add that the expansion period occurred during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations with strong Democratic congressional support, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action once again.

In fact, during the last presidential campaign, President Bush made very few promises when it came to reducing the number of uninsured in this country. However, he did make the promise to reduce the number of uninsured by conducting additional efforts in outreach and enrollment. As he said in a speech in Pennsylvania on October 21, 2004, ``We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low-income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need.''

I agree and hope that with the support of the Administration and the Majority Leader in his introduction of this bipartisan legislation today that we can secure passage of it this year.

Despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has, in combination with Medicaid, caused a reduction in the rate of uninsured children in recent years, it is estimated that 5-6 million of the remaining 9.2 million uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. In New Mexico, there are an estimated 80,000,

or 15.2 percent, of the children in my State without health insurance despite the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP cover children all the way up to 235 percent of the poverty level.

Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. As the Urban Institute has said, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.''

The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. The State of California has taken some important strides to eliminate some of these barriers through what they call their Express Lane Eligibility, or ELE, initiative, which allowed the sharing of income- eligibility information across public programs. Unfortunately, Down Horner, Beth Marrow, and Wendy Lazarus of the Children's Partnership in California found in their report entitled ``Building an On-Ramp to Children's Health Coverage: A Report on California's Express Lane Eligibility Program": ``A clear lesson from California's experience is that there is only so far a state can go in putting an ELE system in place. In the end, existing Federal rules tend to thwart efforts to create a truly efficient process. In California, instead of allowing Medi-Cal to use a school lunch program's income determination, both school lunch and Medi-Cal have to recount a family's income based on their own rules.''

If we can engage in innovative enrollment and outreach activities and promote ELE types of activities in the states, it clearly could have a profound impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our nation's children.

I would like to express my thanks to the Majority Leader and his staff for working through a number of issues with me prior to the introduction of this legislation. I think the bill is stronger, as a result, and look forward to working with him on trying to get the bill enacted in this Congress.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be introducing bipartisan legislation today with Senators Frist, Cantwell, Lugar, Santorum, Collins, Cochran, Murray, and Feinstein named the ``Covering Kids Act of 2005.'' This legislation is intended to improve outreach and enrollment efforts targeted toward children and pregnant women and is very similar to language included in legislation I introduced in the 107th Congress entitled the ``Children's Health Coverage Improvement Act'' and earlier this year with Senator Lugar entitled ``Children's Express Lane to Health Coverage Act.''

The legislation provides $100 million in grants over the next two years to community and faith-based organizations, safety net organizations such as community health centers, disproportionate share hospitals, tribal providers or organizations, schools, or State or local governments for the purposes of conducting innovative outreach and enrollment efforts.

The bill includes language from legislation introduced by Senator Lugar and me that would promote what is called ``Express Lane Eligibility.'' This approach uses two strategies to find and enroll eligible but uninsured children by: 1. targeting large numbers of eligible children in other public benefit programs like school lunch and food stamps; 2. expediting their enrollment in health coverage by using income-eligibility information already submitted by parents when they enrolled their children in these other public programs.

In combination, these two common-sense ideas could have a dramatic impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our Nation's children, which we must do.

According to the American College of Physicians, uninsured children, when compared to insured children, are: up to 6 times more likely to have gone without needed medical, dental, or other health care; 2 times more likely to have gone without a physician visit during the previous year; up to 4 times more likely to have delayed seeking medical care; up to 10 times less likely to have a regular source of medical care; 1.7 times less likely to receive medical treatment for asthma; and, up to 30 percent less likely to receive medical attention for any injury.

Another study estimated that the 15 percent rise in the number of children eligible for Medicaid between 1984 and 1992 decreased child mortality by 5 percent. I would add that the expansion period occurred during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations with strong Democratic congressional support, so this is clearly a bipartisan issue that deserves further bipartisan action once again.

In fact, during the last presidential campaign, President Bush made very few promises when it came to reducing the number of uninsured in this country. However, he did make the promise to reduce the number of uninsured by conducting additional efforts in outreach and enrollment. As he said in a speech in Pennsylvania on October 21, 2004, ``We'll keep our commitment to America's children by helping them get a healthy start in life. I'll work with governors and community leaders and religious leaders to make sure every eligible child is enrolled in our government's low-income health insurance program. We will not allow a lack of attention, or information, to stand between millions of children and the health care they need.''

I agree and hope that with the support of the Administration and the Majority Leader in his introduction of this bipartisan legislation today that we can secure passage of it this year.

Despite the passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, which has, in combination with Medicaid, caused a reduction in the rate of uninsured children in recent years, it is estimated that 5-6 million of the remaining 9.2 million uninsured children are eligible for but unenrolled in either Medicaid or SCHIP. In New Mexico, there are an estimated 80,000,

or 15.2 percent, of the children in my State without health insurance despite the fact that Medicaid and SCHIP cover children all the way up to 235 percent of the poverty level.

Thus, ineligibility for coverage is no longer a barrier for the vast majority of uninsured children. As the Urban Institute has said, ``A major challenge today is how to reach and enroll the millions of children who are eligible but who remain uninsured.''

The biggest problems are knowledge gaps, confusion about program rules, and problems created by bureaucratic barriers to coverage. The State of California has taken some important strides to eliminate some of these barriers through what they call their Express Lane Eligibility, or ELE, initiative, which allowed the sharing of income- eligibility information across public programs. Unfortunately, Down Horner, Beth Marrow, and Wendy Lazarus of the Children's Partnership in California found in their report entitled ``Building an On-Ramp to Children's Health Coverage: A Report on California's Express Lane Eligibility Program": ``A clear lesson from California's experience is that there is only so far a state can go in putting an ELE system in place. In the end, existing Federal rules tend to thwart efforts to create a truly efficient process. In California, instead of allowing Medi-Cal to use a school lunch program's income determination, both school lunch and Medi-Cal have to recount a family's income based on their own rules.''

If we can engage in innovative enrollment and outreach activities and promote ELE types of activities in the states, it clearly could have a profound impact on reducing the uninsured rate among our nation's children.

I would like to express my thanks to the Majority Leader and his staff for working through a number of issues with me prior to the introduction of this legislation. I think the bill is stronger, as a result, and look forward to working with him on trying to get the bill enacted in this Congress.

Mr. President, 40 years ago in the April 1965 issue of Electronics magazine, Gordon Moore, a young engineer, accurately forecast years of exponential improvements in computer chip performance. His abstract observations led to the most concrete results.

In his article entitled, ``Cramming More Components onto Integrated Circuits,'' Moore first articulated his thinking on the future of the integrated circuit. Later, he theorized that the number of transistors on a computer chip would continue to double in power for the same price every 18 months. This postulation became popularly known as Moore's Law, and it was a stunning challenge for scientists and engineers to discover new phenomena and ideas to maintain America's technological momentum.

Shortly thereafter, Gordon Moore helped found the Intel Corporation, which started as a pioneer in cutting-edge semiconductor technology and today remains at the frontier of innovation in integrated circuits. Since that time, all in accordance with Moore's Law, there have been more than three dozen such doublings in computer chip performance.

No wonder that we marvel how our world has changed more in the past century than in the previous hundred centuries. It took 10,000 years to get from the dawn of civilization to the airplane, but just 66 years to get from powered flight to the moon landing. In 1971, Intel could fit 2300 transistors on a silicon chip; later this year, Intel is expected to unveil a chip with nearly 2 billion transistors.

``It's kind of a Biblical thing,'' Leon Lederman, the Nobel laureate, once noted, ``Science begets technology. Once we have transistors, we can make computers. When we have computers, we can make much better transistors . . . which can make better computers.''

In the years ahead, networked supercomputers operating at speeds of over one thousand trillion operations per second will have implications as profound as the Industrial Revolution's spread of technology.

Such technological innovation, predicted by Moore's Law, has led to advances in virtually every industry and has fundamentally impacted the way we live, work, and play. Information technology has become commonplace in our schools, libraries, homes, offices, and businesses-- and new information technology applications are still developing rapidly.

Information technology has had a mutually reinforcing relationship with our ``golden age'' of science and engineering. Advances in supercomputers, simulations, and networks are creating a new window into the natural world--making computing as valuable for theory and experimentation as a tool for scientific discovery.

It has accelerated the pace of scientific discovery across the board in all scientific disciplines. Information visualization and simulation technologies make it possible to learn, explore, and communicate more complex concepts. Supercomputer technology, for example, allows researchers to develop lifesaving drugs more rapidly, better understand the functions of our genes once they have been sequenced, or more accurately predict tornadoes. Advanced information technology tools have emerged to support ``collaboratories''--geographically separate research units on different sides of the world functioning as a single laboratory.

Perhaps the most important area where information technology's impact has been greatest is in our economic sector. It is commonly credited as being a key factor in our economy's structural shift from manufacturing to services, altering the nature of our work and the needs of our workforce.

The widespread diffusion of information technology throughout the economy, and its integration into new business models producing more efficient production methods added a full percentage point to the Nation's productivity after 1995. Economists note that productivity is the most important driver of long-term economic growth, and information technology increases economic output more than any other type of capital investment.

Beginning in 1995, U.S. productivity--spurred by information technology applications--accelerated to rates of growth not seen in two decades. The difference between 1.5 percent and 2.5 percent productivity growth is the difference between the standard of living doubling in one generation or in two generations. It has enormous implications.

The impact of Moore's Law and the resulting U.S. technology industry has also had enormous implications for my home State of New Mexico.

We are proud to be part of the drive within the technology industry to keep pace with Moore's Law. Small and large businesses alike which are part of our local technology industry have led to steadily increasing economic growth and development. Intel Corporation, with Gordon Moore at its helm, has become a major contributor to our State's economy and is an example of the impact that U.S. technological leadership has at a local level.

Overall, Intel has a significant economic and fiscal impact on our State and region. Intel came to Rio Rancho, just outside of Albuquerque, in 1980 and has grown to become our State's largest private manufacturer. Intel New Mexico employs more than 5,000 people and pays some of the highest wages. In 2001-2002, Intel spent $2 billion on new facilities and upgrades to other facilities.

Moreover, Intel's continued growth has brought other benefits to our communities as well, particularly in the area of education. Intel made a $2 million donation to the National Hispanic Cultural Center to integrate the latest technology tools in support of the Intel Center for Technology and the Visual Arts. Intel's ``Teach to the Future'' has provided technology training for more than 6,000 New Mexico teachers to help them incorporate technology into their curricula and help prepare our children for the jobs of the 21st century. Intel has also launched two Computer Clubhouses, technology and mentoring programs for youth in Albuquerque and Santa Fe.

While Moore's Law has meant so much to my State and our Nation, we need to acknowledge that engineering, computer chips, and information technology are about more than our material wealth or our simple acquisition of knowledge. Basically, they are about our dreams.

We have always been a Nation that is defined by the great goals we set, the great dreams we dream. We have always been a restless, questing people--and with willpower, resources, and great national effort, we have always reached our horizons and then set out for new ones.

So on this 40th anniversary of Moore's Law, I want to salute the extraordinarily important contributions of Gordon Moore, the Intel Corporation, and the many other scientists and engineers who have helped us imagine and invent the future.

In large measure, their contributions have made this new century before us so full of promise--molded by science, shaped by technology, and powered by knowledge. These potent transforming forces can give us lives richer and fuller than we have ever known before.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords that would increase Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States by addressing a problem with the Medicaid funding formula that is expected to result in a majority of States in the country having their Federal matching rate drop this coming fiscal year.

Our legislation, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005,'' would protect these 28 States from decreases in the amount of Federal funding they can expect to receive in fiscal year 2006. For the vulnerable low- income children, pregnant women, disabled, and senior citizens that the Medicaid programs in those 28 States serve. This legislation may be the only thing preventing them from losing their health benefits and joining the ranks of our Nation's uninsured, which is already at 45 million people.

In New Mexico, more than one-in-five or over 400,000 New Mexicans are uninsured and the State is facing a $78 million reduction in the federal Medicaid matching rate for fiscal year 2006. This is not the result of a dramatic upswing in the economy in New Mexico. The most recent poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau actually indicates an upswing in the percentage of New Mexicans in poverty at 18 percent--the second highest poverty rate in the country.

Thus, at the very time when there are more people in need of medical care through the Medicaid program, the Federal Government is apparently reducing its assistance through Medicaid. So how is this possible?

The first problem is with the Medicaid matching formula itself. It is based on per capita income, which was established as a proxy for both need and State capacity many years ago. We now have much better data on what should be the factors in the Medicaid formula, including poverty and total taxable resource measures, but the old proxy of per capita income remains.

Despite numerous reports from the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and outside organizations calling for such an update to the Federal Medicaid formula, nothing has happened over the years. Rather than fighting that battle again, our legislation acknowledges that we are stuck with per capita income as the formula factor. Instead, we take issue with how that factor is dropping Federal matching rates across the Nation while the national poverty rate continues to rise. Again, how is this possible?

In the fall of 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, for fiscal year 2006 based on per capital income, PCI, data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, Issue Brief in September 2004, changes in the FMAP will cause States to lose a net $527 million in Federal matching funds in the Medicaid Program with decreases of $867 million to 29 States partially offset by increases for 9 States.

CMS acknowledges that 29 States will lose Federal funding, nine States will gain, and the balance of the States will not be impacted by the Medicaid changes because the latter group of 12 States are already at the statutory minimum FMAP of 50 percent.

Federal law dictates that the FMAP is determined based on the ``three most recent calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.'' Thus, for fiscal year 2006, the PCI data used is from the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Federal intent of a 3-year rolling average is to limit the fluctuations that States might experience since only one-third of the formula is changed on a yearly basis. In other words, Congress felt it important enough to limit the fluctuations in the matching rate through the 3-year rolling average of PCI data that the result is the use of data from 2001 for the calculation of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP.

However, as analysis by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority indicates, in the case of the calculation, of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, performed a comprehensive revision of its calculation of PCI in 2003, as it does every 4 to 5 years, and provided revised data for previous years as well. As a result, CMS changed the 2001 and 2002 PCI data for States in the calculation, Consequently, all 3 years of the PCI data were being changed rather than just one-third.

The result is rather dramatic fluctuations--mostly negative--to State FMAP calculations, As the FFIS Issue Brief indicated, ``Fifteen States are projected to have changes of greater than one percentage point in fiscal year 2006, compared to only three for FY 2005.'' Not since 1998 have the fluctuations been this dramatic.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the average change in the FMAP between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 was -0.26 percentage points, for fiscal year 2003 it was +0.32, for fiscal year 2004 it was +0.12, and for fiscal year 2005 it was -0.09. Thus, over this 4-year period, the average change in the national FMAP was less than 0.2 percentage points. However, due in part to the rebenchmarking of data by BEA, the fiscal year 2006 change in the FMAP will be -0.55 percentage points. Compared to average change over the preceeding 4 years, the fiscal year 2006 FMAP change will be almost three times as dramatic.

As a result, 29 States will absorb a decline in the FMAP for fiscal year 2006. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimates that this will cost those States $860 million. The largest projected percentage point decreases are for Alaska, -7.42, Wyoming, -3.67, New Mexico, -3.15, Oklahoma, -2.27, Maine, -1.99, West Virginia, -1.66, North Dakota, -1.64, Vermont, -1.62, Utah, -1.38, Montana, -1.36, Alabama, -1.32, Louisiana, -1.25, Nevada, -1.14, and Mississippi, -1.08.

The largest dollar declines would be experienced by the states of New Mexico, -$79 million, Louisiana, -$72 million, Alaska, -$69 million, Tennessee, -$68 million, Oklahoma, -$66 million,

Alabama, -$55 million, and Maine, -$47 million.

FFIS adds, ``While the changes in FY 2006 are significant, for many states they only add to previous reductions. Thirteen states (Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) will experience three consecutive reductions--from the fiscal relief FMAP to the base FMAP in FY 2004 to a second reduction in FY 2005 and a third in FY 2006. The cumulative 5-year reduction for a number of States is large, and for many unprecedented--Wyoming (-10.37), Alaska (-9.97), North Dakota (-4.14), Vermont (-3.91), Oklahoma (-3.33), Maine (-3.22), and South Dakota (-3.24).''

The loss in funds to these 29 States is already resulting in planned cuts in benefits and services to Medicaid eligible recipients, such as low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled, and decreased reimbursement to Medicaid providers, including physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, etc.

In an effort to minimize the dramatic fluctuations in the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP, this legislation would limit the loss of States in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points, which restores $442 million of the lost Medicaid dollars to 18 States. The bill would also give 10 additional States a higher FMAP if changes to PCI for 2001 and 2002 were not retroactively applied by CMS. This translates to approximately $229 million for a total of $671 million. This is still far less than the $860 million lost to the 29 States by FMAP reductions.

Therefore, this legislation I am introducing with Senator Snowe and others does not hold States entirely harmless. However, it does limit the losses in Federal Medicaid matching funds that States are expected to absorb due to problems with the use of per capita income as a factor in the Medicaid formula but also in how it is used. Our legislation mitigates those problems, and does so with the expressed intent of preventing millions of additional Americans from joining the ranks of the uninsured as many of our States will be forced to undertake cuts to the Medicaid program to make up for lost Federal funding.

Specifically, the bill allows States to get the better of: 1. the FMAP as calculated by CMS; 2. a recalculated FMAP without retroactively changing the 2001 and 2002 per capita income data; or, 3. a hold harmless limiting the reduction in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points.

In New Mexico, for example, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005'' would restore $66 million of the $78 million that New Mexico is scheduled to lose due to the drop in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. The other 27 States that would benefit from the legislation and the estimated amount they would receive are as follows: Texas--$113 million, New Mexico--$66 million, Alaska--$64 million, Oklahoma--$52 million, Louisiana--$43 million, Maine--$35 million, Alabama--$34 million, West Virginia--$27 million, Tennessee--$27 million, Florida-- $25 million, Mississippi--$22 million, Arizona--$22 million, Nevada-- $17 million, Arkansas--$14 million, Utah--$14 million, North Carolina-- $14 million, Wyoming--$13 million, Vermont--$10 million, Wisconsin--$9 million, Rhode Island--$8 million, Georgia--$8 million, Oregon--$6 million, North Dakota--$6 million, Montana--$6 million, South Carolina--$6 million, Idaho--$5 million, South Dakota--$3 million, and Kansas--$2 million.

I would like to thank the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, including Mike Fogarty and Stephen Weiss, for their outstanding work in analyzing the problem with the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP and for their technical assistance and counsel toward the introduction of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords for providing bipartisan support as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

There be no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords that would increase Medicaid Federal matching payments to 28 States by addressing a problem with the Medicaid funding formula that is expected to result in a majority of States in the country having their Federal matching rate drop this coming fiscal year.

Our legislation, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005,'' would protect these 28 States from decreases in the amount of Federal funding they can expect to receive in fiscal year 2006. For the vulnerable low- income children, pregnant women, disabled, and senior citizens that the Medicaid programs in those 28 States serve. This legislation may be the only thing preventing them from losing their health benefits and joining the ranks of our Nation's uninsured, which is already at 45 million people.

In New Mexico, more than one-in-five or over 400,000 New Mexicans are uninsured and the State is facing a $78 million reduction in the federal Medicaid matching rate for fiscal year 2006. This is not the result of a dramatic upswing in the economy in New Mexico. The most recent poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau actually indicates an upswing in the percentage of New Mexicans in poverty at 18 percent--the second highest poverty rate in the country.

Thus, at the very time when there are more people in need of medical care through the Medicaid program, the Federal Government is apparently reducing its assistance through Medicaid. So how is this possible?

The first problem is with the Medicaid matching formula itself. It is based on per capita income, which was established as a proxy for both need and State capacity many years ago. We now have much better data on what should be the factors in the Medicaid formula, including poverty and total taxable resource measures, but the old proxy of per capita income remains.

Despite numerous reports from the General Accounting Office, the HHS inspector general, and outside organizations calling for such an update to the Federal Medicaid formula, nothing has happened over the years. Rather than fighting that battle again, our legislation acknowledges that we are stuck with per capita income as the formula factor. Instead, we take issue with how that factor is dropping Federal matching rates across the Nation while the national poverty rate continues to rise. Again, how is this possible?

In the fall of 2004, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, published the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, for fiscal year 2006 based on per capital income, PCI, data from 2001, 2002, and 2003. According to the Federal Funds Information for States, FFIS, Issue Brief in September 2004, changes in the FMAP will cause States to lose a net $527 million in Federal matching funds in the Medicaid Program with decreases of $867 million to 29 States partially offset by increases for 9 States.

CMS acknowledges that 29 States will lose Federal funding, nine States will gain, and the balance of the States will not be impacted by the Medicaid changes because the latter group of 12 States are already at the statutory minimum FMAP of 50 percent.

Federal law dictates that the FMAP is determined based on the ``three most recent calendar years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of Commerce.'' Thus, for fiscal year 2006, the PCI data used is from the years 2001, 2002, and 2003. The Federal intent of a 3-year rolling average is to limit the fluctuations that States might experience since only one-third of the formula is changed on a yearly basis. In other words, Congress felt it important enough to limit the fluctuations in the matching rate through the 3-year rolling average of PCI data that the result is the use of data from 2001 for the calculation of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP.

However, as analysis by the Oklahoma Health Care Authority indicates, in the case of the calculation, of the fiscal year 2006 FMAP, the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis, BEA, performed a comprehensive revision of its calculation of PCI in 2003, as it does every 4 to 5 years, and provided revised data for previous years as well. As a result, CMS changed the 2001 and 2002 PCI data for States in the calculation, Consequently, all 3 years of the PCI data were being changed rather than just one-third.

The result is rather dramatic fluctuations--mostly negative--to State FMAP calculations, As the FFIS Issue Brief indicated, ``Fifteen States are projected to have changes of greater than one percentage point in fiscal year 2006, compared to only three for FY 2005.'' Not since 1998 have the fluctuations been this dramatic.

According to the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the average change in the FMAP between fiscal year 2001 and fiscal year 2002 was -0.26 percentage points, for fiscal year 2003 it was +0.32, for fiscal year 2004 it was +0.12, and for fiscal year 2005 it was -0.09. Thus, over this 4-year period, the average change in the national FMAP was less than 0.2 percentage points. However, due in part to the rebenchmarking of data by BEA, the fiscal year 2006 change in the FMAP will be -0.55 percentage points. Compared to average change over the preceeding 4 years, the fiscal year 2006 FMAP change will be almost three times as dramatic.

As a result, 29 States will absorb a decline in the FMAP for fiscal year 2006. The Oklahoma Health Care Authority estimates that this will cost those States $860 million. The largest projected percentage point decreases are for Alaska, -7.42, Wyoming, -3.67, New Mexico, -3.15, Oklahoma, -2.27, Maine, -1.99, West Virginia, -1.66, North Dakota, -1.64, Vermont, -1.62, Utah, -1.38, Montana, -1.36, Alabama, -1.32, Louisiana, -1.25, Nevada, -1.14, and Mississippi, -1.08.

The largest dollar declines would be experienced by the states of New Mexico, -$79 million, Louisiana, -$72 million, Alaska, -$69 million, Tennessee, -$68 million, Oklahoma, -$66 million,

Alabama, -$55 million, and Maine, -$47 million.

FFIS adds, ``While the changes in FY 2006 are significant, for many states they only add to previous reductions. Thirteen states (Alaska, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming) will experience three consecutive reductions--from the fiscal relief FMAP to the base FMAP in FY 2004 to a second reduction in FY 2005 and a third in FY 2006. The cumulative 5-year reduction for a number of States is large, and for many unprecedented--Wyoming (-10.37), Alaska (-9.97), North Dakota (-4.14), Vermont (-3.91), Oklahoma (-3.33), Maine (-3.22), and South Dakota (-3.24).''

The loss in funds to these 29 States is already resulting in planned cuts in benefits and services to Medicaid eligible recipients, such as low-income children, pregnant women, the elderly and disabled, and decreased reimbursement to Medicaid providers, including physicians, hospitals, nursing homes, community health centers, etc.

In an effort to minimize the dramatic fluctuations in the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP, this legislation would limit the loss of States in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points, which restores $442 million of the lost Medicaid dollars to 18 States. The bill would also give 10 additional States a higher FMAP if changes to PCI for 2001 and 2002 were not retroactively applied by CMS. This translates to approximately $229 million for a total of $671 million. This is still far less than the $860 million lost to the 29 States by FMAP reductions.

Therefore, this legislation I am introducing with Senator Snowe and others does not hold States entirely harmless. However, it does limit the losses in Federal Medicaid matching funds that States are expected to absorb due to problems with the use of per capita income as a factor in the Medicaid formula but also in how it is used. Our legislation mitigates those problems, and does so with the expressed intent of preventing millions of additional Americans from joining the ranks of the uninsured as many of our States will be forced to undertake cuts to the Medicaid program to make up for lost Federal funding.

Specifically, the bill allows States to get the better of: 1. the FMAP as calculated by CMS; 2. a recalculated FMAP without retroactively changing the 2001 and 2002 per capita income data; or, 3. a hold harmless limiting the reduction in the FMAP to 0.5 percentage points.

In New Mexico, for example, the ``Medicaid Formula Fairness Act of 2005'' would restore $66 million of the $78 million that New Mexico is scheduled to lose due to the drop in the Federal Medicaid matching rate. The other 27 States that would benefit from the legislation and the estimated amount they would receive are as follows: Texas--$113 million, New Mexico--$66 million, Alaska--$64 million, Oklahoma--$52 million, Louisiana--$43 million, Maine--$35 million, Alabama--$34 million, West Virginia--$27 million, Tennessee--$27 million, Florida-- $25 million, Mississippi--$22 million, Arizona--$22 million, Nevada-- $17 million, Arkansas--$14 million, Utah--$14 million, North Carolina-- $14 million, Wyoming--$13 million, Vermont--$10 million, Wisconsin--$9 million, Rhode Island--$8 million, Georgia--$8 million, Oregon--$6 million, North Dakota--$6 million, Montana--$6 million, South Carolina--$6 million, Idaho--$5 million, South Dakota--$3 million, and Kansas--$2 million.

I would like to thank the Oklahoma Health Care Authority, including Mike Fogarty and Stephen Weiss, for their outstanding work in analyzing the problem with the Fiscal Year 2006 FMAP and for their technical assistance and counsel toward the introduction of this legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Snowe, Rockefeller, Hutchison, Reid, and Jeffords for providing bipartisan support as original cosponsors of this important legislation.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter be printed in the Record.

There be no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record.

I rise today in support of H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief.

First, while this bill addresses many areas of concern, it is primarily focused on providing the American military sufficient funds for its mission to aid Afghanistan in creating a strong and stable nation and to ensure the security necessary to rebuild Iraq.

Provisions in the bills to support American soldiers and their families, such as increasing the death benefit gratuity for soldiers killed this year to $100,000 and providing all members of the armed forces with free meals and phone service, are the right thing to do. We will no longer force men and women who volunteered to serve in one of the most dangerous environments to recuperate without the support of loved ones while charging them for their meals. Other important provisions, such as providing more money to combat the effectiveness of improvised explosive devices, or lED's, and providing $150 million for the purchase of up-armored humvees, will serve to protect Americans already operating in combat zones. The biggest danger to Americans in uniform remains the IED; by using funds to both prevent the IED from exploding and then ensuring that those that do go off near a humvee are defended against, I can safely say that we are working toward the ultimate goal of mitigating the largest source of American casualties.

I was also happy to see that the bill also requires reports on the status of training for both the Afghan and Iraqi security forces, so that the American public is not given arbitrary numbers of successfully trained soldiers and policemen without an understanding of their capabilities. Just as importantly, the bill states that the President should submit an appropriate budget amendment for FY 2006 by September 1, 2005.

There are also some very important, non-military, provisions in this legislation, nearly all of which I co-sponsored when it came to the floor. All will contribute significantly to the establishment of increased stability in regions throughout the world. For example, the United States has done far too little to stop the genocide and atrocities that continue to occur in Darfur, Sudan. This legislation specifically dedicates $50 million to support efforts by the African Union to bring a halt to the violence and another $90 million in humanitarian assistance for refugees in the region. The United States has hardly anything at all to create a stable and viable government in Haiti, this in spite of the fact that the country is only miles from our shore. This legislation provides $20 million to assist in efforts at institution-building, law enforcement, and democracy promotion.

Significantly, this legislation is the only vehicle available for disaster assistance to the countries affected by the tsunami in the Indian Ocean. I need not remind anyone that this was likely the most catastrophic natural event in recent history, with nearly 200,000 people in eight countries dying in just a few hours. Over 100,000 are still missing. Thousands had their homes, family, and livelihoods swept away. The cost in dollars is easily in the hundreds of billions.

It is imperative that the United States step up to the plate and assist in repair and reconstruction. We have pledged almost a billion dollars to this effort, and this legislation provides an initial $656 million to help people get back on their feet. A substantial portion of the funding is directed toward repairing replacing essential services-- roads and highways, telecommunications and energy infrastructure, and water and food distribution systems, and so on. But portions of the funding are dedicated to other critical issues that will allow these countries to get back to baseline--programs designed to assist women with new economic opportunities now that they have lost the provider in their families, programs designed to assist individuals with mental or physical disabilities as a result of the tsunami, programs designed to protect orphaned children from violence and exploitation and reunify them with extended or immediate families, programs to provide loans, business advice and training in job skills so new sources of income and new businesses are developed; and programs to stop the spread of disease, including avian flu.

This bill provides funding for many important causes which I fully support. But let me take a few moments to discuss a few provisions about which I have significant concerns.

First, the conference committee removed a provision that I had included in the Senate version of the bill that would have helped Federal courts cover costs associated with the substantial increase in immigration related cases filed as a result of recent border enforcement efforts. I strongly support efforts to enhance our border security--indeed, I cosponsored an amendment to this bill that was offered by Senator Robert Byrd that provided funding to hire an additional 500 border patrol agents and have consistently voted to allocate additional resources to secure our Nation's border. However, we must also consider the impact that these enforcement measures are having on our Nation's courts, especially in districts along the border region. Since 1995, immigration cases in the 5 southwestern border districts--the District

of Arizona, District of New Mexico, Southern District of California, and Southern and Western Districts of Texas--have grown approximately 828 percent. In 2003, overall immigration filings in U.S. District Courts jumped 22 percent, and in 2004 they jumped 11 percent. Of these cases, 69 percent came from these 5 districts.

We can't just fund the enforcement side without considering what will happen to these individuals once they are detained. This approach not only places a tremendous burden on our courts, but it also threatens our national security by limiting the ability of the courts and probation services to provide adequate case oversight.

Second, the REAL ID Act, which was attached to the bill by the House of Representatives, was included in the final version of the bill. Although the conference committee made several minor modifications to lessen the impact of these provisions, I remain strongly opposed to this section of the bill. The REAL ID Act never received a hearing in the Senate and Republicans on the conference committee refused to consult with their Democrat counterparts on this language. The bill make it more difficult for legitimate asylum applicants to obtain a safe haven in the United States and authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive all legal requirements which could impede the construction of a fence along the border with Mexico. It also repeals provisions of the recently-passed Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, which implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. Specifically, the intelligence reform bill charged the Department of Transportation, in consultation with the States, with promulgating ``minimum standards'' for State driver's licenses in order to prevent fraud or abuse. Without enhancing our national security, the REAL ID Act repeals this section and replaces it with a system that will be extremely difficult and costly for States to implement. I know that these provisions will have a significant impact on my home State of New Mexico, and it is my hope that Congress will be able to revisit this legislation in the near future.

Thus, while there are some aspects of this supplemental request that remain troubling to me and many of my Senate colleagues, I know that by supporting this bill we are working to create a more peaceful and stable world community and meet more of the needs of our brave soldiers serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague and commend him for the good work he has done on this budget and pointing out the flaws in this budget resolution which I agree with him on.

I want to speak for a moment about the provisions related to health care that are in the budget resolution.

There are 53 million of our Nation's most vulnerable children, disabled, and elderly citizens who rely on Medicaid for their well- being and their livelihood. And there are 45 million Americans without health insurance coverage in this country, including over 400,000 in my home State of New Mexico.

The administration offered a budget proposal to us that added $140 billion for health care spending. Even with the proposed reductions in Medicaid spending, which they also recommended, the President was proposing a net increase of $80 billion for health care.

In contrast to that proposal, the budget before us tonight provides no spending for the uninsured and provides a cut in Medicaid of $10 billion over 4 years. This is even more of a cut in Medicaid than what the administration effectively proposed because the administration's budget proposal only got a scored savings of $7.6 billion in Medicaid over 5 years. So it is $140 billion short of the President's proposal on the uninsured, and the cut for Medicaid is scored at greater than the level of cut that the President's budget called for, according to

Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent, and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living in the Albuquerque area.

The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About 50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services. However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less than it did just a few years ago.

As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees an estimated 120 patients a day.

After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize AIHC as their primary care provider.

To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban Indians in the region.

Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to transfer funding to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem. Congressman Udall and I also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson on ways that we can work together with the State to improve the situation at AIHC.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Included in that is a statement by Governor Richardson expressing his strong support for the legislation I am introducing today.

Unfortunately, the options that Secretary Leavitt outlined in his response will only provide limited help in alleviating this crisis. It is for that reason that I introduce this emergency funding legislation today.

Fundamentally, while AIHC does face a unique situation because the Albuquerque metro area has experienced a significant increase in its urban Indian population from surrounding tribes and individuals from tribes across the Nation, the most significant underlying problem is that the entire Indian Health Service is horribly underfunded.

In fact, funding for Native American health care is a national travesty. Over the years, funding for IHS has not kept pace with medical inflation and population growth As a result, IHS services are seriously underfunded, and patients are routinely denied care. For many critical services, patients are subjected to a literal ``life or limb'' test; their care is denied unless their life is threatened or they risk immediate loss of a limb. Care is denied or delayed until their condition worsens and treatment is costlier or, all too often, comes too late to be effective. Federal per capita funding for Indian health is only $1,914, about half the allotment of Federal per capita funding for health care for Federal prisoners.

Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson traveled to the Navajo Reservation last year and saw this problem first-hand and vowed to fight for increased funding for tribal health care. Unfortunately, the administration has proposed a rather modest increase of less than 2 percent for IHS in fiscal year 2006. Yet again, IHS funding will not come close to keeping pace with medical inflation which is growing at double-digit levels in the private sector.

On a per capita basis, it is even worse because HHS's own budget documents indicate that IHS will have to serve over 29,000 new people. Furthermore, although urban Indians represent around half of all Native Americans in the country, urban Indian health programs receive less than 1 percent of all IHS funding and those funds are literally frozen at $33 million nationwide.

This is both unacceptable and unsustainable.

In addition to supporting budget and appropriations amendments time- and-time again over the years that unfortunately have failed in Senate votes, including an amendment by Senator Conrad to the budget resolution this year, I successfully offered amendments last session of Congress to the Medicare prescription drug bill to provide Indian Health Service units to get better prices through the contract health services program and to allow IHS to bill for the full array of services in the Medicare program.

In the coming weeks, I will also be introducing two pieces of legislation to both improve health services generally for urban Indians and to also improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans in the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.

In the short-term, however, we need passage of this critical and urgent legislation to save the health services provided by the Albuquerque Indian Health Center that are being threatened. I urge its immediate passage.

I ask for unanimous consent to print a copy of the legislation in the Record.

Mr. President. I am introducing important legislation to address a crisis in the delivery of health care at the Albuquerque Indian Health Center, or AIHC, which provides critical primary, urgent, and oral health care services to more than 30,000 urban Indians living in the Albuquerque area.

The Albuquerque Indian Health Center serves a large urban population with an inadequate funding base and provides contract health care funding for a significant portion of the urban Indian population. About 50 percent of the base appropriation to the Albuquerque Service Unit goes to Tribes who are delivering their own health care services. However, for AIHC, the demand has not decreased due to the constant underfunding of IHS, and AIHC now receives more than $5 million less than it did just a few years ago.

As a result, AIHC is running a severe deficit and the Indian Health Service, or IHS, has directed AIHC to begin the process of a reduction in force, or RIF, that will result in a significant downsizing of clinical personnel and the closure of the urgent care unit which sees an estimated 120 patients a day.

After the RIF is completed, only two physicians will remain available to provide services for more than 30,000 Native Americans who utilize AIHC as their primary care provider.

To address this problem, I am introducing legislation today that is called the ``Albuquerque Indian Health Center Act of 2005'' and would designate AIHC as a ``critical access facility'' for the region with additional funding of $8 million to address the shortfall and allow AIHC to be restored as a comprehensive ambulatory care center for urban Indians in the region.

Prior to the introduction of this legislation, I have individually and jointly with the entire New Mexico congressional delegation made appeals to the Indian Health Service and to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt to use any authority they have to transfer funding to AIHC to alleviate this critical problem. Congressman Udall and I also sent a letter to Governor Bill Richardson on ways that we can work together with the State to improve the situation at AIHC.

I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.

Included in that is a statement by Governor Richardson expressing his strong support for the legislation I am introducing today.

Unfortunately, the options that Secretary Leavitt outlined in his response will only provide limited help in alleviating this crisis. It is for that reason that I introduce this emergency funding legislation today.

Fundamentally, while AIHC does face a unique situation because the Albuquerque metro area has experienced a significant increase in its urban Indian population from surrounding tribes and individuals from tribes across the Nation, the most significant underlying problem is that the entire Indian Health Service is horribly underfunded.

In fact, funding for Native American health care is a national travesty. Over the years, funding for IHS has not kept pace with medical inflation and population growth As a result, IHS services are seriously underfunded, and patients are routinely denied care. For many critical services, patients are subjected to a literal ``life or limb'' test; their care is denied unless their life is threatened or they risk immediate loss of a limb. Care is denied or delayed until their condition worsens and treatment is costlier or, all too often, comes too late to be effective. Federal per capita funding for Indian health is only $1,914, about half the allotment of Federal per capita funding for health care for Federal prisoners.

Former HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson traveled to the Navajo Reservation last year and saw this problem first-hand and vowed to fight for increased funding for tribal health care. Unfortunately, the administration has proposed a rather modest increase of less than 2 percent for IHS in fiscal year 2006. Yet again, IHS funding will not come close to keeping pace with medical inflation which is growing at double-digit levels in the private sector.

On a per capita basis, it is even worse because HHS's own budget documents indicate that IHS will have to serve over 29,000 new people. Furthermore, although urban Indians represent around half of all Native Americans in the country, urban Indian health programs receive less than 1 percent of all IHS funding and those funds are literally frozen at $33 million nationwide.

This is both unacceptable and unsustainable.

In addition to supporting budget and appropriations amendments time- and-time again over the years that unfortunately have failed in Senate votes, including an amendment by Senator Conrad to the budget resolution this year, I successfully offered amendments last session of Congress to the Medicare prescription drug bill to provide Indian Health Service units to get better prices through the contract health services program and to allow IHS to bill for the full array of services in the Medicare program.

In the coming weeks, I will also be introducing two pieces of legislation to both improve health services generally for urban Indians and to also improve the delivery of health care for Native Americans in the Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP.

In the short-term, however, we need passage of this critical and urgent legislation to save the health services provided by the Albuquerque Indian Health Center that are being threatened. I urge its immediate passage.

I ask for unanimous consent to print a copy of the legislation in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Domenici today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. It is with great pleasure we are today introducing the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2005.

The purpose of our bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's leaders in bridge research and I believe worthy of being designated as one of the Nation's university transportation centers.

Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.

One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another.

Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the new Zakim Charles River Bridge in Boston, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, NM. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, NM, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with almost 49,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.

A little known and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 78,000, or 13 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 states. For example, this chart shows the top ten states with the highest percentage of deficient bridges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent of structurally deficient bridges

State Number of bridges Number of structurally deficient bridges (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma..................................................... 23,312 7,307 31.3 Rhode Island................................................. 749 193 25.8 Pennsylvania................................................. 22,253 5,464 24.6 Missouri..................................................... 23,791 5,028 21.1 Iowa......................................................... 24,902 5,259 21.1 Mississippi.................................................. 16,838 3,379 20.1 Vermont...................................................... 2,690 484 18.0 South Dakota................................................. 5,961 1,072 18.0 North Dakota................................................. 4,507 803 17.8 Nebraska..................................................... 15,455 2,550 16.5 Michigan..................................................... 10,818 1,764 16.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The source is the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System, December 2004

Florida and Arizona have the lowest percentages of structurally deficient bridges at less than 3 percent each.

Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent or rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average costs required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.

Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. Almost one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and over 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,200 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient.

I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation.

To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. Sensors embedded in the concrete monitor the stresses on the bridge as the weather changes or under the weight of vehicles and show how the materials change with age. The information can then be used by engineers to help design more durable and economical bridges. Eventually NMSU's methods could be used to help design better buildings.

In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces and converted it into a ``smart bridge.'' This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. In 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. A third smart bridge, on I10 over University Avenue in Las Cruces, opened in July 2004.

In February 2003 I had an opportunity to tour the facilities at NMSU and to see firsthand the fine facilities and work being conducted on bridge technology. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.

I will ask unanimous consent that two recent articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

New Mexico State is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. The university has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition.

This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at New Mexico Sate University. The university is widely recognized as national leader in

all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for NMSU to be recognized as the university technology bridge research center.

The bill we are introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I do believe NMSU has earned this honor. The bill mirrors the language for University Transportation Centers in the Senate-passed SAFETEA from the 108th Congress and provides $40 million in funding over 6 years from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the bridge technology center.

The Federal Highway Administration has long recognized the quality of the work at NMSU and has provided grants to support their outstanding work. In November 2004, NMSU's bridge center was awarded a $400,000 grant to install fiber-sensors in a new bridge over Interstate 10 in Dona Ana, NM. The sensors will relay information about the effects of stress on the bridge long before any signs of aging are visible. This is the fourth bridge in New Mexico to be equipped with the smart bridge technology. NMSU's Dr. Rola Idriss is the principal investigator of these projects.

NMSU's work is also being recognized internationally. Highway departments in Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are experimenting with the smart bridge technology. In October 2004, NMSU's Dr. David Jauregui and Dr. Ken White were invited speakers for the International Conference on Bridge Inspection and Bridge Management in Beijing, China. Dr. White delivered the keynote address for the conference. NMSU is currently developing a memorandum of agreement with the Chinese bridge community to develop a bridge inspection and management training program.

Congress has also already recognized the fine work at NMSU. For example, at my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University, $250,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and $125,000 for the current fiscal year.

The specific purpose of NMSU's Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the Nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. Improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. Developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. Developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. Providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.

Building on NMSU's research work, the University Technology Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.

The engineers at New Mexico State University have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation.

I ask all senators to support the designation of the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.

I now ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleague Senator Domenici today to introduce legislation that I believe will go a long way in helping to improve the safety and durability of the Nation's highway bridges. It is with great pleasure we are today introducing the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center Establishment Act of 2005.

The purpose of our bill is to authorize the Secretary of Transportation to establish a new University Transportation Center focused on the safety of highway bridges. The new center will lead the Nation in the research and development of technologies for bridge testing and monitoring, procedures for ensuring bridge safety and security, and training in methods of bridge inspection. New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's leaders in bridge research and I believe worthy of being designated as one of the Nation's university transportation centers.

Our highway network is a central component of our economy and fundamental to our freedom and quality of life. America's mobility is the engine of our free market system. Transportation via cars, buses, and trucks plays a central role in our basic quality of life. Much of the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the materials for our homes and offices, comes to us over the 4 million miles of our road network.

One critical element of our highway network is the highway bridges that span streams, rivers, and canyons of our cities and rural areas. Bridges also help traffic flow smoothly by carrying one road over another.

Most highway bridges are easy to overlook. Notable exceptions are New England's covered bridges, the new Zakim Charles River Bridge in Boston, San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge, and the spectacular Rio Grande Gorge Bridge near Taos, NM. The fact is, according to the Federal Highway Administration, we have about 590,000 highway bridges in this country that are more than 20-feet long. The total bridge-deck area of these 590,000 bridges is an amazing 120 square miles, or slightly smaller in area than the entire city limits of Albuquerque, NM, roughly twice the size of the entire District of Columbia, or five times the area of New York's Manhattan Island. The State of Texas leads the Nation with almost 49,000 bridges, about ten percent of the total. Ohio is second with about 28,000 highway bridges.

A little known and disturbing fact about these 590,000 highway bridges is that nearly 78,000, or 13 percent, are considered to be structurally deficient according to the most recent statistics from the FHWA. The percent of structurally deficient bridges varies widely among the 50 states. For example, this chart shows the top ten states with the highest percentage of deficient bridges.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Percent of structurally deficient bridges

State Number of bridges Number of structurally deficient bridges (percent) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Oklahoma..................................................... 23,312 7,307 31.3 Rhode Island................................................. 749 193 25.8 Pennsylvania................................................. 22,253 5,464 24.6 Missouri..................................................... 23,791 5,028 21.1 Iowa......................................................... 24,902 5,259 21.1 Mississippi.................................................. 16,838 3,379 20.1 Vermont...................................................... 2,690 484 18.0 South Dakota................................................. 5,961 1,072 18.0 North Dakota................................................. 4,507 803 17.8 Nebraska..................................................... 15,455 2,550 16.5 Michigan..................................................... 10,818 1,764 16.3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The source is the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System, December 2004

Florida and Arizona have the lowest percentages of structurally deficient bridges at less than 3 percent each.

Structurally deficient bridges are a particular concern in rural areas of our country. According to FHWA's 2002 edition of its Conditions and Performance Report to Congress, 16 percent or rural bridges are structurally deficient compared to only 10 percent of urban bridges. The report estimates the average costs required to maintain the existing 590,000 highway bridges is $7.3 billion per year.

Another surprising fact about our Nation's highway bridges is their age. Almost one-third of all highway bridges are more than 50 years old, and over 10,000 bridges are at least 100 years old. About 4,200 of these century-old bridges are currently rated as structurally deficient.

I do believe the number of deficient bridges in this country should be a concern to all Senators. Ensuring that States and local communities have the funds they need to help correct these deficient bridges will be one of my priorities when Congress reauthorizes TEA-21. However, because there may not be sufficient Federal and State funding to address all of the deficient bridges, it will be important to identify the bridges that are most in need of replacement or rehabilitation.

To ensure the most efficient use of limited resources, Congress should also address the need for new technologies to help States monitor the condition of the Nation's 590,000 highway bridges and determine priorities for repair or replacement. Such monitoring technologies, or ``smart bridges,'' should be quick, efficient, and not damage the bridge in any way. I am very pleased that New Mexico State University is one of the Nation's pioneers in the development of non- destructive methods of determining the physical condition of highway bridges. Such smart bridges can record and transmit information on their current structural condition as well as on the traffic crossing them. Sensors embedded in the concrete monitor the stresses on the bridge as the weather changes or under the weight of vehicles and show how the materials change with age. The information can then be used by engineers to help design more durable and economical bridges. Eventually NMSU's methods could be used to help design better buildings.

In 1998, NMSU installed 67 fiber-optic sensors on an existing steel bridge on Interstate 10 in Las Cruces and converted it into a ``smart bridge.'' This award-winning project was the first application of fiber-optic sensors to highway bridges. In 2000, sensors were incorporated directly in a concrete bridge during construction to monitor the curing of the concrete; the bridge crosses the Rio Puerco on Interstate 40, west of Albuquerque. A third smart bridge, on I10 over University Avenue in Las Cruces, opened in July 2004.

In February 2003 I had an opportunity to tour the facilities at NMSU and to see firsthand the fine facilities and work being conducted on bridge technology. NMSU has an actual 40-foot ``bridge'' in a laboratory on campus to allow studies of instrumentation and data collection.

I will ask unanimous consent that two recent articles describing NMSU's accomplishments on smart bridge technology be printed in the Record at the end of my statement.

New Mexico State is also a leader in other areas of bridge inspection. The university has provided training for bridge inspectors for over 30 years. It has also developed expertise in using a virtual reality approach to document a bridge's physical condition.

This is just a glimpse at the high quality bridge research at New Mexico Sate University. The university is widely recognized as national leader in

all aspects of bridge research and technology. I believe it is fully appropriate for NMSU to be recognized as the university technology bridge research center.

The bill we are introducing today authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and operate the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I do believe NMSU has earned this honor. The bill mirrors the language for University Transportation Centers in the Senate-passed SAFETEA from the 108th Congress and provides $40 million in funding over 6 years from the Highway Trust Fund to operate the bridge technology center.

The Federal Highway Administration has long recognized the quality of the work at NMSU and has provided grants to support their outstanding work. In November 2004, NMSU's bridge center was awarded a $400,000 grant to install fiber-sensors in a new bridge over Interstate 10 in Dona Ana, NM. The sensors will relay information about the effects of stress on the bridge long before any signs of aging are visible. This is the fourth bridge in New Mexico to be equipped with the smart bridge technology. NMSU's Dr. Rola Idriss is the principal investigator of these projects.

NMSU's work is also being recognized internationally. Highway departments in Switzerland, Belgium, and Japan are experimenting with the smart bridge technology. In October 2004, NMSU's Dr. David Jauregui and Dr. Ken White were invited speakers for the International Conference on Bridge Inspection and Bridge Management in Beijing, China. Dr. White delivered the keynote address for the conference. NMSU is currently developing a memorandum of agreement with the Chinese bridge community to develop a bridge inspection and management training program.

Congress has also already recognized the fine work at NMSU. For example, at my request, Congress provided $600,000 in 2001 for bridge research at New Mexico State University, $250,000 in 2003, $500,000 in 2004 and $125,000 for the current fiscal year.

The specific purpose of NMSU's Bridge Research Center will be to contribute to improving the performance of the Nation's highway bridges. The center will emphasize five goals: 1. Increasing the number of skilled individuals entering the field of transportation; 2. Improving the monitoring of the structural health of highway bridges; 3. Developing innovative technologies for testing and assessment of bridges; 4. Developing technologies and procedures for ensuring bridge safety, reliability, and security; and 5. Providing training in the methods of bridge inspection and evaluation.

Building on NMSU's research work, the University Technology Center will develop a strong educational component, including degree opportunities in bridge engineering at both the undergraduate and graduate levels. In addition, the center will have a cooperative certificate program for training and professional development. Distance education technology and computer-based learning will allow programs to be offered at any of the universities.

The engineers at New Mexico State University have applied their vast talents, tools, and techniques to solving technological problems with highway bridges for over 30 years. The team is well established and maintains cutting-edge expertise. The members of the team are recognized and respected at the national and international levels through accomplishments in bridge testing, monitoring, and evaluation.

I ask all senators to support the designation of the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center. I look forward to working this year with the Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Jeffords, the ranking member, to incorporate this bill into the full 6-year reauthorization of the transportation bill.

I now ask unanimous consent that the letters to which I referred be printed in the Record.