Floor Statements

Mr. President, I thank my colleague, Senator Conrad, for yielding me some time to describe an amendment I intend to offer and would like to have the Senate consider and vote on.

This is an amendment which can be best summarized by reading it. It is only a sentence long. And it says:

It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider a bill,

amendment, motion, joint resolution, or conference report

that increases the number of taxpayers affected by the

alternative minimum tax, except for a measure that extends

expiring provisions relating to the child tax credit, the 10-

percent tax bracket, and the marriage penalty.

Mr. President, this is what I would call a first-things-first amendment. I heard the President, in his State of the Union speech--and we have all heard him on numerous occasions--talk about how we need to make permanent the tax cuts.

We had a hearing in the Finance Committee where Secretary Snow, our Secretary of the Treasury, came in and said: We need to make permanent our tax cuts. And my question to him was: What about this looming problem that we all know about, which is called the alternative minimum tax?

Now, the alternative minimum tax was put in place with the idea that very wealthy individuals should not be able to avoid all taxes. If they calculate their taxes and they figure out some way to determine they do not owe anything, then they have to also calculate on the basis of the alternative minimum tax and at least pay that amount.

That was the idea behind it. Unfortunately, with the changes we made in the tax law and with the changes in the economy and the tax structure, we are now to a circumstance where we are beginning to see more and more people affected by the alternative minimum tax. If we were to do what the President has urged--that is, make all these tax cuts permanent--then the number of people who are adversely affected by having to calculate their tax pursuant to the alternative minimum tax would go up very dramatically. Instead of it affecting a couple million people, we are talking about it affecting 30 million people by the year 2012.

My amendment says, let's do first things first. Let's figure out how to resolve this problem of the alternative minimum tax, and let's not be bringing bills to the floor and passing legislation unless we have 60 votes in the Senate in favor of it. Let's not be passing legislation to worsen the situation and to require more and more Americans to fall under these provisions of the alternative minimum tax. To me, it is a straightforward, commonsense thing to do.

I asked Secretary Snow in this same hearing: How much is it going to cost to fix the problem?

His answer was: We don't know. We are working on that.

I said: When are you going to know?

Well, we are going to know maybe a year from now.

That is not an acceptable answer for the Senate or for the Congress or for the American people. We should not be making permanent tax cuts and further cutting taxes unless we know the extent of the revenue loss that is involved in fixing this alternative minimum tax problem.

All this does is set up a point of order. It says, if you are going to bring a bill to the floor that adds more Americans to this roster of people who have to calculate and pay their tax pursuant to the alternative minimum tax, then you have to get 60 Senators to agree to pass that bill or else it does not pass.

It is a very constructive proposal. It is one that would strengthen this budget resolution substantially. I hope all Members will support the amendment when the time comes for me to offer it.

I am advised by my colleague, Senator Conrad, this is not the appropriate time. Therefore, I will not send the amendment to the desk. Again, I appreciate the chance to explain the amendment so my colleagues will know what is involved. As I say, I hope we can get a very strong bipartisan vote in favor of the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, this is the kind of good government amendment that I was counting on my colleague from Oklahoma supporting. I am sure the more he studies it, the more merit he will see in the amendment. I will be glad to send it to the desk at this point, if now is the correct time.

Mr. President, in response to my colleague from Oklahoma, I would certainly want to send it to the desk and have the opportunity to call it up for a vote at the appropriate time, if that is appropriate at this time. I do send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment is straightforward. It would create a 60-vote point of order against tax legislation that would have the effect of forcing more taxpayers into having to pay the alternative minimum tax. The point of order would not lie against tax legislation that extends the expiring marriage penalty relief, the 10- percent tax bracket, or the child tax credit, but it would lie against other tax legislation.

We have about 3 million people who paid the alternative minimum tax last year. It is expected to go up over $30 million by 2010. This amendment doesn't fix that, but this amendment would keep the situation from getting worse by us passing legislation that adds more taxpayers to that group.

I think this is a very meritorious amendment and I urge support for it.

Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Budget Act, I move to waive the applicable section of the act for the purpose of the pending amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, let me congratulate my colleague, Senator Inhofe, for putting this amendment forward. It is a very meritorious amendment. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Madam President, I rise in strong support of the Murray-Kennedy amendment. This would fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. The question of how much money the Federal Government should provide to local school districts to assist in meeting the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act was something we discussed extensively when the bill was being written. Many of us urged that those figures be higher than they wound up being, but the authorizing legislation contains figures which we think the Congress should honor and should step up to and fund. That is exactly what this amendment would do. I congratulate my colleagues, Senator Murray and Senator Kennedy, for putting this amendment forward.

As I am sure has been discussed extensively, the core idea behind the No Child Left Behind Act was we would require States and school districts to establish what would be considered performance goals for their students, that they would make what we call ``adequate yearly progress'' in achieving those goals, and that the Federal Government is committed to provide assistance in doing that. Unfortunately, we have fallen short. Unfortunately, this President has not asked for the full funding on that legislation in any year since it has been in effect. Again this year, he has not asked for that funding. This amendment would try to correct that problem. I believe it is a very meritorious amendment.

I want to particularly spend my very few minutes here focused on one particular program I have spoken about many times on the Senate floor. It is very important in my home State of New Mexico; that is, a provision in the No Child Left Behind legislation the President signed which calls for the Federal Government to assist local school districts in trying to keep kids in school. It was dropout prevention efforts by the Federal Government to assist the local school districts in pursuing those. The idea was, as you are requiring more and more of students, teachers, and schools, there is a great temptation on the part of those schools and those teachers to just say, let's look the other way and allow some of these poorly performing students to leave school. That way we can get our standards up and everyone will be happy.

Unfortunately, that has happened. It is happening in my State. It is happening in many States in the country. We are not doing what we committed to do--we, the Federal Government are not doing what we committed to do in that legislation to assist schools in heading this off. We committed in the legislation to provide $125 million per year to assist in dropout prevention. This year, this current year, we are providing $5 million--not $125 million but $5 million. Considering the number of school districts in this country, the number of students who are at risk of dropping out, this is a ridiculously low figure.

Unfortunately, if we are not able to adopt the Murray-Kennedy amendment, we are going to be faced with a situation where when we come to the Appropriations Committee, they will say there is no money to fund this. It was funded at $5 million. Maybe we will continue to fund it at $5 million again. Essentially, the Federal Government is going to once again take a walk on any responsibility to assist with solving this problem.

I believe firmly when we allow a student to drop out of school before they graduate, we are leaving that student behind. We are leaving that child behind. Clearly, we need to make a priority out of this. This is a problem that particularly affects my State. We have a very large Hispanic and Native American population. The graduation rates among those groups are slightly better than 50 percent. That means we will find half of the Hispanic and Native American students who started in the 9th grade actually going through that graduation ceremony. That is a terrible indictment of our education system. The least we can do is put in the small amount that was contemplated when we wrote the No Child Left Behind Act.

This is very important to schools throughout my State, to the larger schools, also to the rural schools. I hope it is a correction that can be made. I hope very much the Murray-Kennedy amendment is adopted so the funds will be there to actually accomplish this objective.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, Federal child nutrition programs have long played a critical role in promoting healthy diets for American children. First conceived over 50 years ago in response to concerns about the impacts of the diets of American youth on their fitness for the armed forces, Federal child nutrition programs have since expanded and evolved to meet the needs of a diverse population.

However, alarming increases in obesity rates for children and adolescents indicate that we are not doing enough in terms of nutrition education. The statistics are truly startling. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two out of three deaths in the United States, and the major risk factors for those diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. In the last two decades, obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents, and today, one in seven young people are obese, and one in three are overweight. Additionally, three out of four high school students in the United States do not eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Finally, a recent report by the Surgeon General estimated that obesity-related costs in the U.S. are close to $100 billion a year.

Unfortunately, nutrition education programs have been chronically under-funded. We have authorized 50 cents for every child served through Federal child nutrition programs, which is equivalent to over $24 million. This amount refers not to 50 cents per day, per week, or per month--this is 50 cents per year! However, last year, the only nutrition education program specifically directed at our Nation's school children, Team Nutrition, was funded at $10 million. This is equivalent to spending 21 cents a year on each child, a woefully inadequate amount. In addition, no funds were appropriated to nutrition education programs specifically designed to help States implement Team Nutrition materials.

The Early Attention to Nutrition (EATN) Act of 2004, which I am introducing today together with Senators Lugar and Dodd, would raise the total amount dedicated to nutrition education to $50 million a year. The funds would be used by the USDA to develop Team Nutrition materials, and to support Team Nutrition Networks in the States. Currently, only 21 States receive funding through Team Nutrition. This bill would allow all States to obtain Team Nutrition grants, and would fund a Team Nutrition Network in each State, which would be responsible for disseminating and coordinating nutrition education initiatives. The goal of the Team Nutrition Networks is to: instruct students with regard to the nutritional value of foods and the relationship between food and human health; provide assistance to schools in the adoption and implementation of school policies that promote healthy eating; foster community environments that support healthy eating and physical activities; provide training and technical assistance to teachers and school food service professionals consistent with this section; evaluate State and local nutrition education programs; disseminate educational materials statewide through the use of the Internet, mailings, conferences, and other communication channels; provide subgrants to school and school food authorities for carrying out nutrition education activities at the local level; and provide information to parents and caregivers regarding the nutritional value of food and the relationship between food and health.

Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our Nation's youth. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Federal child nutrition programs have long played a critical role in promoting healthy diets for American children. First conceived over 50 years ago in response to concerns about the impacts of the diets of American youth on their fitness for the armed forces, Federal child nutrition programs have since expanded and evolved to meet the needs of a diverse population.

However, alarming increases in obesity rates for children and adolescents indicate that we are not doing enough in terms of nutrition education. The statistics are truly startling. Heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes are responsible for two out of three deaths in the United States, and the major risk factors for those diseases and conditions are established in childhood through unhealthy eating habits, physical inactivity, obesity, and tobacco use. In the last two decades, obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents, and today, one in seven young people are obese, and one in three are overweight. Additionally, three out of four high school students in the United States do not eat the recommended five or more servings of fruits and vegetables each day. Finally, a recent report by the Surgeon General estimated that obesity-related costs in the U.S. are close to $100 billion a year.

Unfortunately, nutrition education programs have been chronically under-funded. We have authorized 50 cents for every child served through Federal child nutrition programs, which is equivalent to over $24 million. This amount refers not to 50 cents per day, per week, or per month--this is 50 cents per year! However, last year, the only nutrition education program specifically directed at our Nation's school children, Team Nutrition, was funded at $10 million. This is equivalent to spending 21 cents a year on each child, a woefully inadequate amount. In addition, no funds were appropriated to nutrition education programs specifically designed to help States implement Team Nutrition materials.

The Early Attention to Nutrition (EATN) Act of 2004, which I am introducing today together with Senators Lugar and Dodd, would raise the total amount dedicated to nutrition education to $50 million a year. The funds would be used by the USDA to develop Team Nutrition materials, and to support Team Nutrition Networks in the States. Currently, only 21 States receive funding through Team Nutrition. This bill would allow all States to obtain Team Nutrition grants, and would fund a Team Nutrition Network in each State, which would be responsible for disseminating and coordinating nutrition education initiatives. The goal of the Team Nutrition Networks is to: instruct students with regard to the nutritional value of foods and the relationship between food and human health; provide assistance to schools in the adoption and implementation of school policies that promote healthy eating; foster community environments that support healthy eating and physical activities; provide training and technical assistance to teachers and school food service professionals consistent with this section; evaluate State and local nutrition education programs; disseminate educational materials statewide through the use of the Internet, mailings, conferences, and other communication channels; provide subgrants to school and school food authorities for carrying out nutrition education activities at the local level; and provide information to parents and caregivers regarding the nutritional value of food and the relationship between food and health.

Now is the time to take action toward improving the health and well- being of our Nation's youth. The cost of improving the health of our children will be far less than the cost of the health consequences to come if we do nothing.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and two letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Alexander, the High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. High-end computing, also known as high performance computing or supercomputing, is a critical component to the scientific advances, defense capabilities, and commercial competitiveness of the United States in the 21st century. Several recent developments in high-end computing have stimulated a re-examination of current U.S. policies and approaches. These developments include: 1. the deployment of Japan's Earth System Simulator, which now occupies the number one position on the Top 500 list of the world's fastest computers; 2. concerns about the difficulty in achieving substantial fractions of peak hardware computational performance on high-end systems; and 3. the ongoing complexity of developing, debugging, and optimizing applications for high-end systems. In addition, there is growing recognition that a new set of scientific and engineering discoveries could be catalyzed by access to very-large-scale computer systems--those in the 100-teraflop to petaflop range. Lastly, the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, the Office of Science and Technology Policy's High End Computing Revitalization Task Force, and the national security community have each released interim or final comprehensive reports expressing serious concern over the current U.S. position in high-end computing research. Without government support, market forces are unlikely to drive sufficient innovation in high-end computing, because the private sector would not capture the full value of its innovations on a short enough time scale.

In supercomputing, innovation is important in architecture, in software, and in application strategies and solution methods. The coupling of these aspects is equally important. Major architecture challenges stem from the uneven performance scaling of different components. In particular, as the gap between processor speeds, memory bandwidth, and memory and network latency increases, new ideas are needed to increase bandwith and mitigate latency. Additionally, as new mechanisms are introduced to address those issues, there is a need for ways to supply a stable software interface that facilitates exploiting hardware performance improvements while the changes in mechanism. A new large-scale computer system exceeding the capability of Japan's Earth Simulator would provide an excellent test-bed for promising new advancements in these areas as well as provide science, industry, and defense with an extraordinarily powerful new tool for advancing the interests of the United States.

The need for software innovation is motivated by its role as an intermediary between the application, the problem being addressed, and the architectural platform. Innovation is needed in the ways that system software manages the use of hardware resources, such as network communication. New approaches are needed for ways in which the applications programmer can express parallelism at a level high enough to reflect the application solution and without platform-specific details. Novel tools are needed to help application-level software designers development their solutions at a more abstract and problem- specific level. Software technology is also needed to lessen future dependence on legacy codes. Enough must be invested in the creation of advanced tool and environment support for new language approaches so that users can more readily adopt new software technology.

Importantly, advances in algorithms can sometimes improve performance much more than architectural and other software advances do. A center for high-end computing software would aid immensely in spurring innovation in this underdeveloped research area, an aid in coordinating the federal government's efforts with industry, academia, and between its national laboratories.

The department of Energy (DOE) and its Office of Science research programs are uniquely qualified to lead research in these fields. They have played an important role in the development of high-end computing, networking, and information technology. These capabilities have been readily accessible to the U.S. scientific community for a diverse set of grand challenge scientific computational problems. Contributions by the DOE include pioneering the concept of remote, interactive access to supercomputers (developing the first interactive operating system for supercomputers, establishing the first national supercomputer center); developing the mathematical foundations for high performance computing with numerical linear algebra libraries used worldwide; leading the transition to massively parallel supercomputing by developing software to allow processors to communicate with each other; and contributing to the development of the Internet with software that dramatically speeds up the transmission of messages.

Many challenges are associated with modeling complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena, especially on massively parallel computers with peak speeds in hundreds of teraflops. These challenges include the management and analysis of petabyte-scale data sets. A program to address these challenges will require multi-disciplinary collaborations between theoretical and computational scientists, computer scientists, and applied mathematicians at universities, national laboratories, and industry. Such a program will enhance the ability of the DOE to meet its mission goals and advance the state of the art for the U.S. economic and industrial base in the fields of energy, genetics, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, chemical processing, electronics, geology, and transportation. This bill will be a major step toward addressing today's greatest needs and, to creating the high-wage jobs of the future.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce, along with Senator Alexander, the High-End Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. High-end computing, also known as high performance computing or supercomputing, is a critical component to the scientific advances, defense capabilities, and commercial competitiveness of the United States in the 21st century. Several recent developments in high-end computing have stimulated a re-examination of current U.S. policies and approaches. These developments include: 1. the deployment of Japan's Earth System Simulator, which now occupies the number one position on the Top 500 list of the world's fastest computers; 2. concerns about the difficulty in achieving substantial fractions of peak hardware computational performance on high-end systems; and 3. the ongoing complexity of developing, debugging, and optimizing applications for high-end systems. In addition, there is growing recognition that a new set of scientific and engineering discoveries could be catalyzed by access to very-large-scale computer systems--those in the 100-teraflop to petaflop range. Lastly, the National Academies of Sciences and Engineering, the Office of Science and Technology Policy's High End Computing Revitalization Task Force, and the national security community have each released interim or final comprehensive reports expressing serious concern over the current U.S. position in high-end computing research. Without government support, market forces are unlikely to drive sufficient innovation in high-end computing, because the private sector would not capture the full value of its innovations on a short enough time scale.

In supercomputing, innovation is important in architecture, in software, and in application strategies and solution methods. The coupling of these aspects is equally important. Major architecture challenges stem from the uneven performance scaling of different components. In particular, as the gap between processor speeds, memory bandwidth, and memory and network latency increases, new ideas are needed to increase bandwith and mitigate latency. Additionally, as new mechanisms are introduced to address those issues, there is a need for ways to supply a stable software interface that facilitates exploiting hardware performance improvements while the changes in mechanism. A new large-scale computer system exceeding the capability of Japan's Earth Simulator would provide an excellent test-bed for promising new advancements in these areas as well as provide science, industry, and defense with an extraordinarily powerful new tool for advancing the interests of the United States.

The need for software innovation is motivated by its role as an intermediary between the application, the problem being addressed, and the architectural platform. Innovation is needed in the ways that system software manages the use of hardware resources, such as network communication. New approaches are needed for ways in which the applications programmer can express parallelism at a level high enough to reflect the application solution and without platform-specific details. Novel tools are needed to help application-level software designers development their solutions at a more abstract and problem- specific level. Software technology is also needed to lessen future dependence on legacy codes. Enough must be invested in the creation of advanced tool and environment support for new language approaches so that users can more readily adopt new software technology.

Importantly, advances in algorithms can sometimes improve performance much more than architectural and other software advances do. A center for high-end computing software would aid immensely in spurring innovation in this underdeveloped research area, an aid in coordinating the federal government's efforts with industry, academia, and between its national laboratories.

The department of Energy (DOE) and its Office of Science research programs are uniquely qualified to lead research in these fields. They have played an important role in the development of high-end computing, networking, and information technology. These capabilities have been readily accessible to the U.S. scientific community for a diverse set of grand challenge scientific computational problems. Contributions by the DOE include pioneering the concept of remote, interactive access to supercomputers (developing the first interactive operating system for supercomputers, establishing the first national supercomputer center); developing the mathematical foundations for high performance computing with numerical linear algebra libraries used worldwide; leading the transition to massively parallel supercomputing by developing software to allow processors to communicate with each other; and contributing to the development of the Internet with software that dramatically speeds up the transmission of messages.

Many challenges are associated with modeling complex physical, chemical, and biological phenomena, especially on massively parallel computers with peak speeds in hundreds of teraflops. These challenges include the management and analysis of petabyte-scale data sets. A program to address these challenges will require multi-disciplinary collaborations between theoretical and computational scientists, computer scientists, and applied mathematicians at universities, national laboratories, and industry. Such a program will enhance the ability of the DOE to meet its mission goals and advance the state of the art for the U.S. economic and industrial base in the fields of energy, genetics, pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology, chemical processing, electronics, geology, and transportation. This bill will be a major step toward addressing today's greatest needs and, to creating the high-wage jobs of the future.

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

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

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

Mr. President, I thank my colleagues, Senator Hatch and Senator Murray, for their leadership on extending and strengthening the research and development, R&D tax credit. The ability of our Nation to remain a world leader in technology and innovation is directly related to the investment we make in research and development. The R&D tax credit is an important component of this strategy as it creates an incentive for private companies to invest in research they might not otherwise have invested in but for that tax credit. This is an efficient way to accomplish a goal in our society that is increasing funding for research.

Senator Domenici and I have been working here for the last several years to make some changes in the R&D tax credit law. The amendment I have sent to the desk incorporates those changes we have worked on. The amendment is based on legislation we filed in each of the last several Congresses, most recently S. 515 in the 107th Congress. This amendment addresses two weaknesses in the current R&D tax credit.

The first part of the amendment provides participants in a research consortium with a flat 20-percent research credit. A consortium is defined as a group of five or more unrelated companies which are working together on a specific type of mutually beneficial research. Under current law, these companies are unable to take advantage of the full R&D tax credit. That does not make good sense. We should be encouraging companies to work together to share the costs of research instead of requiring that each of them bear the full capital expenditure to which they would be entitled in order to get the research tax credit. The amendment I have sent to the desk which Senator Domenici and I have been working on would correct this and would encourage this type of private research teaming.

The second part of the amendment would be to get rid of a restriction that allows companies to only consider 65 percent of their research expenses for purposes of calculating their tax credit when the funds are paid to an outside party such as a Federal laboratory or university or a small business.

Again, as with consortiums, this provision makes no sense as it exists in current law. In many if not most cases it is far more efficient and economical for a company to have their research done at a facility that is already equipped to do this type of experimentation and development. We ought to be encouraging businesses to utilize these resources instead of discouraging that use. For this reason, the amendment would allow a company to consider 100 percent of all of their expenses when contracting with a lab or university or small business to handle their research projects.

The amendment would come into effect at the end of the year. It would continue for as long as the R&D provisions are in effect which, under the Hatch-Murray amendment which is what this proposal would amend, is the end of 2005.

I look forward to working with my colleagues, Senators Hatch and Murray, on their R&D amendment. I very much appreciate their support for these small changes Senator Domenici and I would like to see made in this bill.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the pending business?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment be set aside.

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

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

Madam President, my amendment would correct one of the most obvious problems with S. 1805. In fact, what it would do is to amend S. 1805 so that the bill would do more of what its proponents claim they want to do.

The proponents of S. 1805 say its purpose is to bar frivolous or junk lawsuits against gun manufacturers and dealers. They define these frivolous suits as situations in which the manufacturer and the dealer have done nothing wrong, but situations where although they have done nothing wrong they are being sued when a perfectly good gun, but in a perfectly legal manner, is misused by a criminal to cause damage that neither the manufacturer nor the dealer intended or could have foreseen.

I have some sympathy with that concern. In my view, there ought to be some protections against frivolous cases, but S. 1805 bars much more than frivolous cases. It also bars cases where the injury is caused by an act or omission of the manufacturer or dealer where the gun was defectively designed or manufactured and where that defective design or manufacture was what caused the injury.

The National Rifle Association has distributed a statement opposing my amendment. In that statement they say that S. 1805 does not prohibit reasonable suits in product defect cases where the firearm or ammunition is used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

That statement is blatantly false. S. 1805 says a person can bring a suit for injury caused by a defective product if the injury is reasonably foreseeable, but then it goes on to say it is only reasonable to foresee injuries that occur when in all other respects the gun is used in a lawful manner. In other words, we should not expect a manufacturer of a gun to anticipate that anyone would ever be injured from the use of that gun while some other law might be violated.

This is contrary to common sense. It is analogous to saying that a car manufacturer could only be held liable for a defective steering system in the car if the driver were in all other respects obeying all traffic laws when the injury occurred. If the driver happened to be speeding or had an expired license, then suit for the defective steering system would be barred. That means all suits against the manufacturer/dealer, not just by the driver of the car but by anyone else who was injured, a pedestrian or a passenger in the car, would be barred if we were to apply the same logic that we are applying in this bill to automobile manufacturers as well.

Let me explain a real-life situation where this problem occurred in my home State and in our largest city of Albuquerque. In 1993, there were three teenage boys, 14, 15 and 16, who were hanging out together at the house of the parents of the 14-year-old. Sean Smith was his name. They decided to go out for something to eat, and while they were out they were approached in a parking lot to see if they would be willing to buy a gun along with some ammunition for that gun, and the price quoted to them was $40.

The 15-year-old in the group, whose name was Michael, examined the gun's chamber and saw that it was empty. He took the ammunition magazine and he inserted it in the gun since it was being offered as part of the package deal. He inserted it in the gun and he bought the whole thing. Then they went back to Sean's house to continue to waste time.

At the house, Michael took the magazine back out of the gun and they continued to pass the gun around while they were doing various other things. All three of these teenagers thought the gun was unloaded since the magazine had been taken out of the gun again.

While they were passing this gun around, one of the boys, as he later said, stupidly pulled the trigger and accidentally shot Sean, the youngest of these three teenagers, who was talking on the telephone across the room. A bullet hit him in the mouth. It seriously injured him.

Sean and his parents filed suit against the manufacturer and distributor, claiming that the gun was defectively designed in that there was no warning that the gun might still be loaded even though the magazine had been removed and there was no safety device on the gun to prevent it from being fired when the magazine had been removed.

The trial judge dismissed the case, but the New Mexico Court of Appeals said the case should have been allowed to proceed, and they reinstated the case. In doing so, they made a very key distinction. In their opinion, they said:

This is not a case where the plaintiffs are arguing that

this gun was per se defective and capable of being misused.

This is a case where the plaintiffs are saying that the

design of a gun was defective and that the designers and

manufacturers should have foreseen that an accident like this

could happen.

The court said that the jury should have been allowed to determine whether this kind of injury was foreseeable with a gun designed in this way.

If S. 1805, as it currently exists on the Senate floor, is enacted without my amendment, this suit by Sean Smith and his parents will be banned, and similar suits will be banned.

This is not just my opinion. This is the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. In a memorandum to me last week, they stated that for this case to avoid the bar that is imposed by S. 1805, the plaintiffs would have to

show two things. No. 1, they would have to persuade a jury that the injury was reasonably foreseeable, but second, they would have to show that in no other respect was the misuse of the weapon either criminal or unlawful.

The Congressional Research Service concludes that there is a New Mexico criminal statute prohibiting the negligent use of a deadly weapon, and that this statute was violated here so that in their view the suit would be barred under the language of S. 1805.

The truth is, in virtually every State in this country there is a criminal statute prohibiting the negligent use of a deadly weapon. So what S. 1805 is saying is, if a person is injured by the negligent use of a gun, then the Congress is declaring that the designer, manufacturer, and dealer cannot be sued even if the injury was the result of the negligence of that designer, manufacturer, or dealer.

Congress is saying that regardless of the facts of the case, we in Congress are deciding that all such injuries are not reasonably foreseeable by those potential defendants.

I said that this conclusion contradicts all common sense. Let me also point out in addition to that the tort laws of our States say you can sue people for injuries they suffer if the injuries were caused by the negligence of the person you are suing and the person should have reasonably foreseen those injuries would occur. This is also black letter law, well recognized by the American Law Institute in their restatement of torts, their Second Restatement of Torts, which I think is universally recognized as an accurate statement of the law in this country.

In section 302(a) of that restatement of torts, the ALI, the American Law Institute, says:

An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor

realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable

risk of harm to another through the negligent or reckless

conduct of another or a third person.

Then, in 302(b), they go on to say:

An act or an omission may be negligent if the actor

realizes or should realize that it involves an unreasonable

risk of harm to another through the conduct of the other or a

third person which is intended to cause harm, even though

such conduct is criminal.

S. 1805 redefines what is reasonably foreseeable for companies that are in this particular business--this particular business being the designing, the manufacturing, and the selling of guns. It says that we may want to require auto manufacturers to foresee that producing a defective steering system could injure people, even people who are riding in cars where the driver is violating another law, but we will not require that gun manufacturers foresee that producing a defective gun may injure people unless, in all other respects, there are no laws being violated.

So my amendment is very simple. It states gun manufacturers should be held to the same standard of care as other manufacturers are; that is, auto manufacturers, lawnmower manufacturers, manufacturers of toasters. It defines ``reasonably foreseeable'' the way it is universally defined in the tort law. That is the reasonable anticipation that harm or injury is likely to result.

We should not be passing a law to shield gun manufacturers from the standard of care that all other manufacturers are required to meet. As written, S. 1805 carves out special protection for a special interest group. This is not the equal justice under law that we all give speeches about on the Senate floor. This is not fair to the victims of gun violence and gun accidents, such as Sean Smith and his family in Albuquerque. When an injury such as this occurs, they should have some redress in the courts. Without my amendment, they will not. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

From what the Senator has said, he is on my side and should support my amendment.

Where a gun is designed and manufactured in such a way that a person would be misled in believing it was unloaded when, in fact, it was still loaded, and a teenager got ahold of that gun and accidentally shot his friend, would the Senator agree under those circumstances that the designer or manufacturer of that gun could be held liable if the jury found that the injury that resulted was reasonably foreseeable?

I yield additional time to the Senator.

If the Senator will respond on my time, in this case, the gun in question, a pistol these kids bought, and when they bought it they looked in the barrel--he was 15 years old--he looked in the chamber, saw there was no bullet in there, he got the magazine and put it in because he was buying a magazine along with the gun. They went back home and he took the magazine out and they were passing it around. He assumed when he took the magazine out the bullets also all came out. They all assumed that, these three boys.

Now, in fact, they were wrong. One of these bullets had stayed in the chamber and then there was the accidental shooting of one of the boys.

The parents of this boy who was shot went to court and said, either you should have had some kind of warning that having a magazine out did not mean the gun was unloaded or you should have a safety which provided if the magazine was out you could not pull the trigger, one of the two.

The issue before our court in New Mexico was, shouldn't the jury be able to decide that; should the jury be able to decide whether the injury that resulted here was reasonably foreseeable. But does the Senator think in that circumstance it is appropriate for the jury to make a decision?

I thank the Senator for his response.

Madam President, how much time remains on my side?

Madam President, let my respond to a few points the Senator from Idaho made, and also the Senator from Alabama.

The first point that the Senator made that I will respond to is the Senator from Idaho said the bill as it now stands represents longstanding principles to tort law. The quote he gave us was from Prosser and Keeton's Treatise on the Law of Torts. All who have been to law school know that Prosser on torts is the accepted authority. The quote he gave was: An actor may proceed upon the assumption that others will obey criminal law.

What he failed to say, if you go on in that same paragraph, that: A defendant may still be held liable for not taking precautions for foreseeable, intentional, or criminal acts which the defendant might reasonably anticipate.

The case I have been focused on was not a criminal act in the traditional sense. This was an accident. This 15-year-old boy did not intend to shoot his friend who was sitting across the room talking on the telephone. He did shoot him. He shot him in the mouth. It was accidental. But because our State legislature and virtually every State legislature in the country has said that the negligent use of a deadly weapon is a crime, then essentially they have said negligence is the same as criminal activity in this instance.

The position which the Senator from Idaho is taking is that since negligence is the same as criminal activity, we are determining as a matter of law here--if we pass this law without my amendment, we are determining as a minority of law that it is not reasonable to assume that any teenager with a gun might act in a negligent fashion.

I don't know how many in Congress have had teenagers in their house but that is just not a commonsense, reasonable position to take. We all know that at times kids act negligently. Grownups act negligently. Everyone does at times.

The question is not whether the person acts negligently but whether an innocent person who was in that room at the time that negligent activity occurred should be barred from suing for a defective product.

Now, the Senator from Alabama says he would not allow suits against a manufacturer because, in his view, this was not something which would justify that. That should be decided by a jury. That is exactly what our court of appeals in New Mexico said. That is the law of the State of New Mexico. This bill is going to override that. This bill is going to say, it does not matter what your juries think, we in the Congress are saying these guns are not defective, even if the design of the gun results in this type of an injury.

The Senator from Alabama said the people who do wrong are the ones who should get sued. I agree with that. That is exactly what my amendment tries to provide. It says let's make a determination as to whether the designer and the manufacturer of this gun did something wrong when they designed it and manufactured it; and, if so, let's allow them to be held liable.

That is exactly what we do in the case of automobile manufacturers. That is exactly what we do in the case of lawnmower manufacturers. It is exactly what we do in the case of manufacturers of every other item that we have in our country.

We are saying, in this bill, look, we are going to hold gun manufacturers to a lower standard than everybody else. I do not understand why it is in the public interest for us to hold gun manufacturers to a lower standard of care than everybody else who manufacturers anything in our country. That does not compute with me.

I think, clearly, the better course is to allow the State law of New Mexico and of most States to prevail, to allow the courts to use traditional principles for what is foreseeable to determine who will be held liable. In fact, in this case, the Court of Appeals of New Mexico was right. This case should have been allowed to proceed--should still be allowed to proceed, I would say, because this case has still not been completed. This case will be barred, if we pass this legislation, and the Smith family--Sean Smith and his parents--will be denied recovery, not because Sean was acting negligently, because he was not, because his 15-year-old friend was acting negligently. And the New Mexico Legislature has said that the negligent use of a deadly weapon is, in fact, a crime.

So I think my amendment is a small change in the underlying bill which would dramatically improve it, in my opinion, and would cause it to still deal with the frivolous cases that the Senator from Idaho and the Senator from Alabama and all are worried about.

I am not trying to protect frivolous cases. There is all this reference to how we have activist attorneys going after innocent manufacturers. That was what the Senator from Alabama said. Frankly, I do not doubt that there are some innocent manufacturers. I do not doubt there are some activist lawyers. In this case, we had a lawyer representing a family that had been injured, through no fault of their own, and they have a right to go to court. That is all I think we should maintain.

So I hope my amendment will be agreed to and that all Senators will support it.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Madam President, how much time do I have?

Madam President, to me, this amendment is a question of whether we are going to hold gun manufacturers and designers and dealers to the same standards we hold all other manufacturers in this country. Or are we instead going to pass a law that says, look, everybody else has to be held to a high standard, but if you are designing, manufacturing, or selling a gun, you can forget about that high standard; you have a much lower standard. That is exactly what this bill does without my amendment. It holds manufacturers to a much lower standard.

I don't think that is the best public policy. I think we are making a major mistake in this regard. In this circumstance, the case I have talked about for the last hour, where you have three teenagers, one of whom acts negligently and another of whom is injured as a result of that, there is no doubt that 15-year-old who acted negligently should be subject to liability for what he did. I am not suggesting he should not be subject to liability. All I am saying is a good argument can be made that if this gun had been properly designed, there would have been some warning the gun still was loaded or could be loaded even though the magazine was out, or there would be some safety mechanism on the gun to keep it from being fired when the magazine was out. In either case, this injury would have been avoided.

All I am saying is that under New Mexico law, as our courts have interpreted New Mexico law, an American has a right to go to a jury and argue that this injury was reasonably foreseeable by the manufacturer and, therefore, the manufacturer should be liable for the damage that was done by this defectively designed gun.

I believe we ought to maintain that ability. This bill, S. 1805, undercuts that ability and basically bars those lawsuits. That would be a big mistake.

I urge my colleagues to support the amendment I have offered. I believe it would dramatically improve this legislation and actually bring it into line with traditional tort law.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for up to 15 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, right before the last recess I came to the floor to address the need for a revitalized science and technology policy in the country. One example that I gave of the current administration's inattention to science and technology and high-wage job creation was the proposal in the budget that we received a couple weeks ago to eliminate the Advanced Technology Program, or ATP, in the Department of Commerce. This is in the President's fiscal year 2005 budget request.

In my view--as I stated it then; and I want to repeat it now-- eliminating the Advanced Technology Program makes no sense. Even the administration's own budget justification, which clearly praises the program, makes clear that the program is valuable.

The Advanced Technology Program has been a constant target over the

years of those who would like to kill the program for philosophical reasons. But I believe those of us in Congress need to make decisions about Federal programs on a logical basis and on the basis of the good that those programs are doing for the people we represent.

So I believe we should examine the Advanced Technology Program by asking two fundamental questions. First, should our Government be sponsoring an Advanced Technology Program at all? And second, is the Advanced Technology Program we are talking about an effective program for advancing technology development in our country?

In discussing the need for a Government role, a basic principle with which nearly everyone would agree is that a Government role makes sense when there is a market failure of some sort. When it comes to advanced technology, there is ample empirical evidence of a critical gap between the point at which Federal support for basic research ends and the point at which private capital market support of product development begins.

Now, let me try to illustrate that by referencing this chart. This chart is called the ``Valley of Death'' just to try to wake up my colleagues to the fact that this is an important issue. Here, looking at this vertical axis, we are showing the invested money. Along the horizontal axis, we are showing the various stages of developing a technology-based product for use.

The Government does invest a fair amount of money in basic research. That is shown over here at the left, in the beginning stages of developing a product or developing a technology. Here we show labs and universities. Our Federal Government does invest a substantial amount in that area, and that is certainly commendable. Of course, many of my colleagues would argue that we do not invest enough there, and I would agree with that, but that is a subject for another day.

Industry invests most of its research and development dollars at the other end of this development continuum and invests those funds on commercializing short-term, low-risk, reliably profitable products, and then making incremental improvements on those products which they are fairly confident they can make a return on in the market.

In between these two stages of the research and development process, we have what many in the industry call the ``Valley of Death.'' That is the gap where our private capital markets fail to invest applied research dollars to create preproduct, so-called platform technologies. This market failure occurs because such generic technologies are too expensive or they are too risky for industry to develop on its own.

At the same time, it is precisely these generic, platform technologies that are the seed corn for new products, and in many cases new market categories. The benefits to industry generally and to our national economy far outweigh the costs of developing such technologies.

In the case of defense technologies, the Federal Government is the ultimate customer, and programs such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency--the work that they fund in DARPA in the Defense Department--plays an important partnering role with defense contractors and high-technology firms.

But for technologies with predominantly civilian applications, the Federal Government does not have the strong customer stake in developing specific technologies. So filling in this funding gap in the ``Valley of Death'' is precisely the role that the Advanced Technology Program plays for civilian technology.

That brings me to the second question that I outlined earlier. That is, is this advanced technology program an effective program for promoting these new platform technologies? Some in the Congress have reacted over the years to the ATP as if it were some sort of Federal program to help Gillette make a five-bladed razor or to help Microsoft write Windows 2006. This is not an accurate description of the ATP by any stretch.

Let me give a few examples of actual ways in which the Advanced Technology Program has succeeded in bridging the ``Valley of Death'' for U.S. industries with a resulting positive impact on our economy and our global competitiveness.

In 1991, the Council on Competitiveness characterized the U.S. printed wiring board industry as losing badly or lost. That was their description. By this they meant the U.S. was not likely to have a presence in that industry within 5 years. It attracted little private venture funding. Only a handful of the 700 firms in the industry had the capability to undertake advanced research. Through the ATP, a new joint venture between the printed wiring board industry as a whole and the Government was formed that would not have occurred otherwise. The new manufacturing technologies that were developed in the joint venture yielded an estimated cost savings for industry in excess of $35 million.

Another example: In the past, U.S. car makers tolerated dimensional variations of up to 5 or 6 millimeters. That is a level that often complicated the assembly process. It required custom manual reworking, and compromised vehicle fit and finish, as it was referred to in the industry. An advanced technology project was put together with the U.S. auto industry, reducing this variation to less than 2.5 millimeters by inventing an array of new technologies. This one project is credited with increasing the U.S. gross domestic product by over $200 million and creating 1,400 jobs. In short, empirical research demonstrates this project helped increase the demand for domestically produced vehicles and helped domestic producers stem the loss of market share to offshore manufacturers.

The Advanced Technology Program has also been called the godfather of the DNA diagnostic tool industry. That is another example which clearly my colleagues should look into before they follow the administration's recommendation and try to terminate this program.

The Advanced Technology Program was making investments in nanotechnology long before it became a household word, along with investments in homeland security and bringing fuel cells and solar cells and microturbines to the marketplace. In 2003, the White House sponsored a fuel cell demonstration and the President tested a long- life mobile phone. Let me put another chart up here. You might recognize this photo. The President was testing a long-life mobile phone powered by advanced fuel cell technology. Without the Advanced Technology Program, MTI microfuel cells would not have been able to develop this breakthrough technology to power this very phone. So that is another example.

As I have tried to make amply clear, there are many examples of ATP successes. There are certainly also other examples where ATP projects have not been successful. That is the nature of a high-risk, high- payoff research program. But let's put the successes and the failures in the overall context.

The total cost of ATP funding to date has been about $2.1 billion. That is over the life of that program. All told, the preliminary results of a 2003 ATP survey of over 350 companies indicates the actual economic value resulting from ATP joint ventures exceeds $7.5 billion. The benefits from just a few projects analyzed to date are projected to exceed $17 billion, when those platform technologies are fully exploited by the industries involved.

ATP has also been the subject of a recent overall assessment by the National Academies of Science and Engineering, and the core conclusions of this 2001 study speak strongly both to the success of the program and to the generic focus of the program. The national academies concluded the ATP was an effective partnership program at the generic technology level. The academies specifically found the selection criteria applied by the ATP enabled it to meet broad national needs and to help ensure the benefits of successful awards extend across firms and industries. The national academies have also found the ATP peer review of applicants for both technical feasibility and commercial potential was effective in targeting promising new technologies that were unlikely to have been funded through the normal operation of the capital markets.

I could go on and on about the conclusions of the national academies study. Let me just say the reality is industry will not fill the void the President would create if his budget proposal to kill this Advanced Technology

Program were agreed to. Given industry's increased emphasis on short- term applied R&D and consequently reduced emphasis on early phase technology research, the elimination of the Advanced Technology Program would simply trigger the further erosion of U.S. technology leadership and lead to even greater loss of high-technology, high-wage jobs in the future.

I would like to end with a quote from David Morgenthaler, former president of the National Venture Capital Association. The members of the National Venture Capital Association account for around 80 percent of the venture investment taking place in the United States today. David Morgenthaler says:

It does seem that early stage help by the government in

developing platform technologies and financing scientific

discoveries is directed exactly at the areas where

institutional venture capitalists cannot and will not go.

When experts in venture capital and leaders in industry and our National Academies of Science and Engineering all agree the Advanced Technology Program plays a unique and valuable role in supporting our high technology competitiveness, we ought to pay attention.

I hope all my colleagues will join me in resisting the unwise proposal which we have been given by the President to terminate the Advanced Technology Program. ATP has demonstrably contributed to maintaining our manufacturing strength. A strong and well-funded Advanced Technology Program will help the United States remain competitive in high tech manufacturing in the future. Instead of ending this program, we should look for ways to duplicate its strengths in other civilian technology areas such as energy and environment and homeland defense.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) or premium support demonstration that was included in the Medicare prescription drug bill last year from operating in the State of New Mexico.

There are many problems with the demonstration that I will describe which will have the result of fundamentally undermining the traditional Medicare program and directly conflicts with the President's commitment in his State of the Union address in 2003 when he said, ``Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is.'' That would not be the case in what is being referred to as the comparative cost adjustment program.

What is the comparative cost adjustment program? Starting in 2010, the Medicare prescription drug bill provided for a six-year demonstration in selected demonstration sites where private health plans and traditional Medicare would supposedly compete on the basis of price. The demonstration will be conducted in up to six metropolitan areas in which at least 25 percent of eligible beneficiaries are enrolled in some type of managed care plan.

Albuquerque, NM, already has an enrollment in private plans that exceeds 25 percent and so would obviously be a targeted community for the demonstration. Santa Fe, NM, could also be on the demonstration list by 2010 as its current reported managed care enrollment is at 17 percent and that is why Congressman Tom Udall is joining us here today in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Congressman Udall and I oppose our Medicare beneficiaries being subjected to a grand experiment, just as similarly proposed premium support demonstrations have been blocked in recent years in Baltimore, Denver, Phoenix, and Kansas City, Missouri.

Just as members of Congress blocked those proposed demonstrations, the legislation I am introducing today would protect the entire State of New Mexico from being subjected to such an experiment. I understand that other Senators and Congressmen are introducing similar legislation today to protect the citizens of their respective states as well.

I am opposed to the comparative cost adjustment or premium support demonstration being imposed upon the Medicare beneficiaries in New Mexico because the demonstration: 1. fails to truly provide for a level playing field of competition between traditional Medicare and private health plans; 2. leads to much higher volatility and uncertainty in the Medicare program as beneficiaries would have their premiums vary dramatically according to the plan chosen during the demonstration from year to year and from region to region; 3. directly contradicts President Bush's guarantee and the promise of the current multi-million advertising campaign by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that people can keep their traditional Medicare as is; and, 4. pushes traditional Medicare in such regions into what health economists refer to as a ``death spiral.''

Proponents of the premium support demonstration argue that the intent of the experiment is, according to the conference report, ``to test whether competition between private plans and the original Medicare FFS program will enhance competition in Medicare, improve health care delivery for all Medicare beneficiaries, and provide for greater beneficiary savings and reduction in government costs. . . . ''

The conference report adds that the demonstration ``will level the playing field between all options available to Medicare beneficiaries.''

Unfortunately, the demonstration will not focus competition or choice on either price or quality precisely because it fails to provide for a level playing field. Under the guise of making Medicare more efficient, the legislation dramatically overpays private health plans in comparison to traditional Medicare.

In fact, during testimony before the Senate Finance Committee a few weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson acknowledged that both the Congressional budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget believe the prescription drug bill creates a situation whereby every percentage increase of enrollment by Medicare beneficiaries will cost the Medicare program and American taxpayers billions of dollars. How is this possible?

The bill creates this situation by intentionally paying private health plans, on average, an estimated 107 percent of the cost of traditional Medicare. Health plans are receiving disproportionate share hospital payments, graduate medical education funding, and other complicated formula adjustments that ensure payments well in excess of the Medicare fee-for-service program.

In addition, health plans, by enrolling healthier patients than traditional Medicare, receive an additional estimated benefit of about eight percent over fee-for-service Medicare. Numerous studies, including those by the General Accounting Office, find that high-cost beneficiaries--including the functionally disabled, the mentally impaired, and the chronically ill--were less likely to join a Medicare

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would prohibit the comparative cost adjustment (CCA) or premium support demonstration that was included in the Medicare prescription drug bill last year from operating in the State of New Mexico.

There are many problems with the demonstration that I will describe which will have the result of fundamentally undermining the traditional Medicare program and directly conflicts with the President's commitment in his State of the Union address in 2003 when he said, ``Seniors happy with the current Medicare system should be able to keep their coverage just the way it is.'' That would not be the case in what is being referred to as the comparative cost adjustment program.

What is the comparative cost adjustment program? Starting in 2010, the Medicare prescription drug bill provided for a six-year demonstration in selected demonstration sites where private health plans and traditional Medicare would supposedly compete on the basis of price. The demonstration will be conducted in up to six metropolitan areas in which at least 25 percent of eligible beneficiaries are enrolled in some type of managed care plan.

Albuquerque, NM, already has an enrollment in private plans that exceeds 25 percent and so would obviously be a targeted community for the demonstration. Santa Fe, NM, could also be on the demonstration list by 2010 as its current reported managed care enrollment is at 17 percent and that is why Congressman Tom Udall is joining us here today in introducing the companion bill in the House of Representatives.

Congressman Udall and I oppose our Medicare beneficiaries being subjected to a grand experiment, just as similarly proposed premium support demonstrations have been blocked in recent years in Baltimore, Denver, Phoenix, and Kansas City, Missouri.

Just as members of Congress blocked those proposed demonstrations, the legislation I am introducing today would protect the entire State of New Mexico from being subjected to such an experiment. I understand that other Senators and Congressmen are introducing similar legislation today to protect the citizens of their respective states as well.

I am opposed to the comparative cost adjustment or premium support demonstration being imposed upon the Medicare beneficiaries in New Mexico because the demonstration: 1. fails to truly provide for a level playing field of competition between traditional Medicare and private health plans; 2. leads to much higher volatility and uncertainty in the Medicare program as beneficiaries would have their premiums vary dramatically according to the plan chosen during the demonstration from year to year and from region to region; 3. directly contradicts President Bush's guarantee and the promise of the current multi-million advertising campaign by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that people can keep their traditional Medicare as is; and, 4. pushes traditional Medicare in such regions into what health economists refer to as a ``death spiral.''

Proponents of the premium support demonstration argue that the intent of the experiment is, according to the conference report, ``to test whether competition between private plans and the original Medicare FFS program will enhance competition in Medicare, improve health care delivery for all Medicare beneficiaries, and provide for greater beneficiary savings and reduction in government costs. . . . ''

The conference report adds that the demonstration ``will level the playing field between all options available to Medicare beneficiaries.''

Unfortunately, the demonstration will not focus competition or choice on either price or quality precisely because it fails to provide for a level playing field. Under the guise of making Medicare more efficient, the legislation dramatically overpays private health plans in comparison to traditional Medicare.

In fact, during testimony before the Senate Finance Committee a few weeks ago, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson acknowledged that both the Congressional budget Office and the Office of Management and Budget believe the prescription drug bill creates a situation whereby every percentage increase of enrollment by Medicare beneficiaries will cost the Medicare program and American taxpayers billions of dollars. How is this possible?

The bill creates this situation by intentionally paying private health plans, on average, an estimated 107 percent of the cost of traditional Medicare. Health plans are receiving disproportionate share hospital payments, graduate medical education funding, and other complicated formula adjustments that ensure payments well in excess of the Medicare fee-for-service program.

In addition, health plans, by enrolling healthier patients than traditional Medicare, receive an additional estimated benefit of about eight percent over fee-for-service Medicare. Numerous studies, including those by the General Accounting Office, find that high-cost beneficiaries--including the functionally disabled, the mentally impaired, and the chronically ill--were less likely to join a Medicare

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Adam Rosenberg, a fellow on the staff of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be given privileges of the floor today, February 25.

Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee for all of his fine work on this highway bill the Senate is now considering. I know he has had a very difficult task to balance the infrastructure needs of each state, and I appreciate the excellent job he and his staff have done.

If I could, I ask the chairman if he is familiar with the proposal to designate U.S. Highway 54 in the States of Texas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Kansas as the SPIRIT high priority corridor on the National Highway System?

I know the chairman is aware that community leaders in the four states have been working for 9 years to focus attention on the SPIRIT corridor because of the heavy truck traffic on the route and the important role that transportation plays in economic development. Is the chairman aware that Senators Roberts, Domenici, and I have offered an amendment to the highway bill to designate the SPIRIT corridor as a high priority corridor, but the managers of the bill have stated they prefer to consider it during the conference with the House?

I thank the chairman for his consideration of my amendment in the conference.

protecting history and natural beauty

Mr. President, I have submitted an amendment to continue an important Federal program begun in TEA-21 that addresses a unique problem with the roads in and around the Nation's single largest Indian reservation and the neighboring counties. Through this program, Navajo children who had been prevented from getting to school by frequently impassable roads are now traveling safely to and from their schools. Because of the unusual nature of this situation. I believe it must continue to be addressed at the Federal level.

The Navajo Nation is by far the Nation's largest Indian Reservation, covering 25,000 square miles. Portions of the Navajo Nation are in three States: Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah. No other reservation comes anywhere close to the size of Navajo. The State of West Virginia is about 24,000 square miles. In fact, 10 States are smaller in size than the Navajo reservation.

The counties in the three States that include the Navajo reservation must maintain the roads used by county school buses but receive no Federal or local tax funds to maintain the roads. Nearly all of the land area in these counties is under Federal or tribal jurisdiction. As I understand it, counties in States with large reservations are not required to maintain roads on the reservation. Of course, no other reservation is anywhere close to the size of the Navajo reservation.

According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, about 9,800 miles of public roads serve the Navajo nation. Only about one-fifth of these roads are paved. The remaining 7,600 miles, 78 percent, are dirt roads. Every day school buses use nearly all of these roads to transport Navajo children to and from school.

In response to this unique situation, I authored a provision in TEA- 21 to provide annual funding to the counties that contain the Navajo reservation to help ensure that children on the reservation can get to and from their public schools. Under section 1214(d) of TEA-21, $1.5 million is made available each year to be shared equally among the three states that contain the Navajo reservation. These Federal funds can be used only on roads that are located within or that lead to the reservation, that are on the State or county maintenance system, and that serve as school bus routes.

For the last 6 years, the counties have used the annual funding to help maintain the routes used by school buses to carry children to school buses to carry children to school and to Headstart programs. The amendment provides a simple 6-year reauthorization of that program, with a modest increase in the annual funding to allow for inflation and for additional roads to be maintained in each of the three States.

Continuing this program for 6 more years is fully justified because of the vast area of the Navajo reservation--by far the Nation's largest. I do believe the unique nature of this situation can only be dealt with effectively by the Federal Government. I am pleased to have my colleague, Senator Domenici, as a cosponsor, and I hope all Senators will support our amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that several letters supporting this amendment be printed in the Record.