Floor Statements

I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I wish to use a few moments of morning business to talk about and describe two amendments I have proposed to the pending legislation. I hope these are amendments that can be unanimously agreed to by all Senators. They seem to me to make eminent sense and, clearly, are in the best interest of our country and the people we represent.

The first amendment I wish to speak about is amendment No. 138. This amendment, which Senator Kennedy is cosponsoring with me, would extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay the health premiums under the Medicare Program. It uses the Medicaid Program to do that. It is a program that was enacted in 1997. It was slated to be reauthorized at the end of 2002, but, of course, Congress did not enact either Medicaid or Medicare legislation in the 107th Congress. The program was extended by the continuing resolutions that we have enacted in the last few months. It was extended until March 12 of this year.

The amendment I have offered will extend that program through September 30 of this year to give us additional time to do a more complete extension.

This program is known as the QI-1 Program. It is the Qualifying Individual Program. It is a program within Medicaid. It is a block grant payment to States to pay the Medicare Part B premium of $58.70 per month, and it is a program that will allow States to pay that premium for individuals who have incomes of somewhere between $887 a month and $997 a month, or couples with an income of $1,194 a month up to $1,344 a month. This covers Medicare beneficiaries whose income is between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal poverty level.

This amounts to a benefit of nearly $700 annually that many older and disabled Americans depend upon to pay for a portion of their health care costs and items such as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. There are well over 120,000 people nationwide who currently rely on the QI-1 Program. These 120,000 people will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage without this assistance.

In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress needs to extend this 5-year Federal allocation for the QI-1 Program through the remainder of this fiscal year.

According to the data of the Kaiser Family Foundation, there are over 9 million Medicare beneficiaries with incomes between 100 percent of poverty and 175 percent of poverty. Although we do not know the exact number eligible for this particular program of Medicare beneficiaries who are between 120 and 135 percent of poverty, we can estimate there are at least 1 million who are eligible for the program. As I have indicated, there are 120,000 people currently enrolled.

In my home State, for example, we have almost 1,000 New Mexicans enrolled in the QI-1 Program. Disenrolling these low-income Medicare beneficiaries would cost each and every one of them about $700 annually. This could have a significant impact not only on their finances but on their health.

In a letter from the Medicare Rights Center, they give an example of a 69-year-old widow with severe arthritis, with hypertension, with high cholesterol, in the Nation's Capital. This woman, I refer to as Mrs. B, does not qualify for Medicaid, yet she cannot afford premiums for a Medicare HMO or Medigap plan. This QI-1 Program, which we are seeking in this amendment to extend, does cover her Part B premium of over $700 per year. If she loses that assistance, she does not know how she can make ends meet. She already struggles to buy food, make the Medicare copayment, and purchase prescription drugs.

This is a bipartisan issue. President Bush had included QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. Moreover, in his confirmation testimony to be the Commissioner of the FDA, Mark McClellan testified that the administration continues to support reauthorization of this program. In addition, QI-1 reauthorization was also included as part of S. 3018, the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002, which was introduced by my colleagues, Senator Baucus and Senator Grassley, late last year.

During each and every Senate race this past fall, candidates from both sides of the aisle promised our Nation's seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries improved health coverage with the addition of prescription drug coverage. While waiting for that to come about, low- income Medicare beneficiaries should not be blindsided by the loss of critically needed premium protection that the QI-1 Program provides.

I urge passage of this amendment, when we get to it, for another 6\1/ 2\ months. I implore my colleagues to address the issue and to permanently extend the program once that issue becomes appropriate to consider.

Mr. President, another amendment I have filed, amendment No. 126, is an amendment to provide permanent authority to operate the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve is the major tool the United States has to deal with the impact of a significant disruption in oil supplies. Releasing oil from the SPR, as it is referred to, in coordination with stock drawdowns with other consuming nations pursuant to the international energy agreement, can add more supply to a tight market, can reduce the possibility of price spikes, and reduce the possibility of economic havoc as the United States experienced during the Arab oil embargo.

We are currently experiencing a disruption in oil supplies from Venezuela. We face the possibility of an additional disruption if we wind up going to war with Iraq and during the aftermath of any conflict in Iraq. In this context, it should be of concern to all Senators that the current authority to draw down oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to participate in the international energy agreement will expire on September 30 of this year.

My amendment incorporates the exact language we agreed to last fall between House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill. The amendment permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It also requires filling the Reserve to 700 million or its current capacity.

While I prefer to move this legislation through the Energy Committee, I cannot guarantee we would complete our work and get this legislation to the President before September 30. Therefore, I believe the prudent thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the omnibus appropriations bill and deal with this matter now.

Again, I see this as a bipartisan issue, one that the administration supports, one that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle support. I hope very much this amendment, as well, can be added to the bill without objection by any Senator.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, before discussing the Bingaman amendment No. 138, I ask unanimous consent first, with regard to amendment No. 126, that Senator Domenici and Senator Landrieu be added as cosponsors.

Mr. President, I ask that that amendment be called up.

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

Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Collins, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Landrieu. The purpose is to extend a critical Federal-State program that assists low- income Medicare beneficiaries to pay their health premium costs.

This program that has been on the books, now, since 1997 and that I am trying to extend to the end of this fiscal year, the end of September, is one which allows States to use Medicaid funds to assist these low-income individuals in paying their Medicare premiums. It is for low-income seniors. It was enacted as part of the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. It was slated for reauthorization at the end of this last year, 2002. Unfortunately, we did not enact any Medicare or Medicaid legislation as part of the 107th Congress, so the program was extended by the last two continuing resolutions.

The current continuing resolution under which we are operating the Government right now provides for extension of this until March 12. The amendment I am offering would further extend this through September 30 of 2003.

The program to which I am referring is called the QI-1 Program, Qualifying Individual Program, within Medicaid. It is a block grant payment to States to pay the Medicare Part B premium. This Part B premium is $58.70 per month this year.

This program only applies to individuals who have monthly incomes between $887 and $997. So if you have an income over $997 per month, you are not qualified to participate in the program I am trying to extend. In the case of a couple, the income of the couple can be anywhere between $1,194 and $1,344. This represents an effort to cover Medicare beneficiaries with incomes between 120 and 135 percent of the Federal poverty level. This amounts to a little over $700 annually for many of these older and disabled Americans who depend upon this payment for a portion of their health care costs. This is for such things as prescription drugs and supplemental coverage. We have over 120,000 people nationwide who currently rely on this QI-1 Program. They will be hard pressed to afford Medicare coverage unless this assistance is continued.

In short, to prevent the erosion of existing low-income protections, Congress needs to extend the 5-year Federal allocation for the QI-1 Program this year.

We do not know the exact number of people who are eligible for this particular program--that is, the number of Medicare beneficiaries who have incomes between 120 percent and 135 percent of poverty--but the estimate we have is there are about a million of these individuals. We have about 120,000, as I indicated before, who are actually enrolled, although the numbers are likely far higher than that. We have missing data from several States, and it is very difficult to calculate it.

In my State of New Mexico, for example, we know there are almost 1,000 New Mexicans who are currently enrolled in the QI-1 Program. This disenrolling of these low-income Medicare beneficiaries, which is what we would do if we did not adopt my amendment--we would disenroll these people from the program--it would cost each and every one of them $700 annually. It could have a significant impact on their health.

In a letter from the Medicare Rights Center, they gave an example of the kind of person who is affected by this amendment. The example was a 69-year-old widow with severe arthritis, hypertension, and high cholesterol who lives here in our Nation's Capital. This woman, referred to as Mrs. B, does not qualify for Medicaid, yet she cannot afford premiums for a Medicare HMO or a Medigap plan. The QI-1 Program does cover her Part B premium of over $700 per year. If she loses that assistance, as she will unless the amendment we are offering here is adopted--if she loses that assistance, she does not know how she could make ends meet since she already struggles to buy food, to pay her Medicare copayment, and to purchase

prescription drugs. As I indicated before, in order to qualify for this payment which she is now receiving, she cannot have an income of over $997 per month.

This is a bipartisan issue. President Bush has included the QI-1 reauthorization in his fiscal year 2003 budget. When we had the confirmation hearing in the Health and Education Committee on the new Commissioner for the Food and Drug Administration, Mark McClellan, he testified that the administration continues to support the reauthorization of this program.

In addition, QI-1 reauthorization was also included in S. 3018, which is the Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act. This was a bill that Senators Grassley and Baucus introduced late last year.

During every Senate race around this country last fall, candidates on both sides of the aisle promised our Nation's seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries improved health coverage with the addition of a prescription drug benefit. While they are waiting for us to enact that prescription drug benefit, low-income Medicare beneficiaries should not be blindsided by the loss of critically needed premium protection that is provided in the QI-1 Program.

I urge the passage of this amendment to extend the program another 6\1/2\ months. I urge my colleagues to join me in addressing the issue on a more permanent basis in the coming months. There are at least 120,000 low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are counting on us.

Let me also respond very briefly to some comments my colleague from Pennsylvania made earlier, where he said all of these amendments that are being offered are new money.

This is not new money. This is an existing program. It is a program that has been in place for 5 years. There are 120,000 individuals out there who are depending upon us continuing to assist them in making these Medicare premium payments. This is not an example of growing government, as was suggested. This is an example of maintaining a benefit for low-income seniors and disabled individuals in our society.

Let me indicate a few of the numbers we are talking about in different States so my colleagues have a sense of what is involved.

In the State of Alabama, there are 9,817 individuals currently receiving this benefit; in the State of Arizona, there are 5,620; in the State of Florida, there are 13,769; in the State of Kentucky, 4,329; Louisiana, 5,596; New Jersey, 7,214; North Carolina, 9,059; Ohio, 8,362; and Oklahoma, 3,169. There are many individuals who depend upon this payment. The correct thing to do, and the right thing to do, is for us to adopt this amendment.

How much time remains?

I reserve the remainder of my time.

May I ask what the unanimous consent request is?

I would still have the initial minute or so?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I ask to add Senators Johnson, Clinton, and Hollings as cosponsors.

I very much appreciate the managers' willingness to agree to this amendment. It is a very good amendment. I know it is supported on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, could I just ask----

Not wishing to object, I ask if any disposition has been made on amendment 126.

I will wait for the remaining package. If not, I will ask for a vote on it.

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains 4 million dollars allocated for the Next Generation Lighting Initiative. Is that correct?

I would be glad to. The Next Generation Lighting Initiative was first introduced as S. 166 in the 107th Congress. It was then included in H.R. 4, the Comprehensive Energy Bill, as amended by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D authorization

title, with the Next Generation Lighting Initiative, is now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress.

Yes, it is now S. 167.

Mr. President, I would like to pose a question to my esteemed colleague from Montana. It is my understanding that the fiscal year 2003 Senate Appropriations Interior Subcommittee report contains $4 million allocated for the next generation lighting initiative? Is that correct?

I would be glad to. The next generation lighting initiative was first introduced as S. 1166 in the 107th Congress. It was then included in H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill, as amended by the Senate, which then went into conference with the House. Unfortunately, the energy bill failed in conference, but the next generation lighting initiative, and nearly the entire R&D authorization title were conferenced with the House. This agreed upon R&D authorization title, with the next generation lighting initiative, is now found in H.R. 238, as introduced by the House Science Committee in the 108th Congress.

Yes, it is now Senate Bill 167.

Mr. President, I submitted an amendment to extend the authority for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, is the major tool the United States has to deal with the impact of a significant disruption in oil supplies. Current authorizations to the President to release or drawdown oil from the SPR will expire on September 30, 2003.

Release of oil from the SPR, in coordination with stock drawdowns with other consumer nations is done pursuant to the International Energy Agency's International Energy Program, IEP, Agreement. Actions taken under this agreement seek to add more supply to a tight market, reducing the possibility of price spikes and economic havoc that oil markets experienced during such incidents as the Arab oil embargo. Decisions to withdraw crude oil from the SPR during an energy emergency are made by the President under the authorities of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act.

It is important to extend the SPR authority on this legislation. While it may be possible to move legislation through the Energy Committee, there is no guarantee that a separate bill would be completed and on the President's desk before September 30. Therefore, the prudent thing for the Senate to do is to add this language to the Omnibus Appropriation bill. Such precautionary action has already been taken with regard to Price Anderson authority which does not expire until the end in 2004.

My amendment incorporates the exact language that was agreed to last fall by the House and Senate conferees on H.R. 4, the comprehensive energy bill.

The amendment:

Permanently authorizes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and our participation in the International Energy program.

Codifies current Administration policy that the reserve be filled to 700 million barrels which is its current capacity. This does not affect the Administration's discretion to adjust the timing and extent of fill in light of market conditions.

Permanently authorizes the Northeast Heating Oil Reserve program.

Current market disruptions such as political unrest in Venezuela and the potential threat of a war with Iraq have already led to unusually high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping the SPR. In the current market context, operation of the SPR should be a top concern to all Senators.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I thought I would talk a little about the current situation regarding oil production in two important oil producing states--Venezuela & Iraq. The current uncertainty over production in Venezuela and the possibility of war with Iraq has contributed to the high oil prices we see today.

On December 2, oil workers opposed to Venezuelan President Chavez, initiated a general strike, now in its 53rd day. The strike has nearly shut down the government-owned oil company PdVSA. Production has dropped from 2.7 million barrels per day to less than half a million. At the same time, world oil prices, currently at a 2 year high, have risen more than $8 per barrel, or 30 percent since the strike began. Oil market experts attribute half of the price increase to the political unrest and production uncertainty in Venezuela.

The U.S. imports a significant amount of Venezuelan crude. Roughly 16 percent of U.S. imports come from Venezuela, or what on average amounts to more than a million barrels per day, according to the EIA. In the

absence of Venezuelan imports, U.S. refiners have had to dip into their own inventory stocks and resort to using other crudes. Absent Venezuelan imports, the U.S. has increased its import of Iraqi crude in the last month.

Even though OPEC overproduction helped cushion the strike's impact at the outset, U.S. refiners had to turn to their own inventories and to Iraqi crude to make up for lost imports. Those inventories are already below normal operational inventory level. Even if the strike were to end today, experts are unsure how long it will take to bring Venezuelan crude production back to its pre-strike level of three million barrels per day. It is unclear how carefully the oil wells in PdVSA's fields were shut down improperly, it may take more than six months to bring them back online.

Although some strikers have returned to work and the government succeeded in pumping up light crude production, Venezuela has not been able to restart production of its trademark heavy crude. To add to the uncertainty, Venezuela's Central Bank closed the country's foreign exchange market on Wednesday frustrating oil operators' ability to convert currency. The reliability of Iraqi crude supplies going forward is also uncertain.

The threat of war with Iraq has contributed to unusually high oil prices and talk of potentially tapping into the SPR. This region's importance to the stability of not only U.S. but also world markets cannot be understated.

Iraq represents 6 percent of U.S. petroleum imports and the Persian Gulf region represents 25 percent. If military conflict disrupts oil imports from Iraq or other gulf states, the larger shortfall may exceed OPEC's leftover capacity. Even under a benign war scenario, panicked buying and a rise in crude prices would still occur at the outset of the conflict. Price estimates from oil analysts at the Center for Strategic and International Studies range up to $80 barrel oil for the worst case scenario.

In addition to the impact of a war on oil from Iraq, we cannot be certain about Iraqi production after a conflict is concluded. If Iraqi oil fields are damaged during the war, Iraqi production could be reduced for a longer period of time.

In this period of very tight oil markets and continuing uncertainty about both Venezuelan and Iraqi production, we may have to look very seriously at releasing oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve this year. We should not take the risk that our authority to use the SPR will expire in September. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and re-authorize SPR authority now.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted, although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700 years of continuous use.

Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in helping with this legislation.

Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either the Santa Fe or Washington hearings.

This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that the bill did not infringe on private property rights.

Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost, whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are working together to preserve the area.

By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico.

Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and Domenici in introducing this bill.

The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure that sound and objective science is available with respect to the hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer.

This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with the eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The U.S. Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to further the goals of this program, with half of the available funds directed to the State component of the program.

A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains.

The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant science needed to address this problem is available so that we will have a better understanding of the resources of

the High Plains Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again supporting this bill.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.

The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, in had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay with be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark.

Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site.

From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899.

Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community.

In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same.

By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration.

For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation.

Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that we can expeditiously consider the bill this year.

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

Mr. President, I am pleased today to again introduce legislation to protect several important archaeological sites in the Galisteo Basin in New Mexico. This bill identifies approximately two dozen sites in northern New Mexico which contain the ruins of pueblos dating back almost 900 years. When Coronado and other Spanish conquistadors first entered what is now New Mexico in 1541, they encountered a thriving Pueblo culture with its own unique tradition of religion, architecture and art, which was influenced through an extensive trade system. We know that these sites remain occupied up through the Pueblo revolt in 1680. After that, the sites were deserted, although we still don't know why they were abandoned, after over 700 years of continuous use.

Through these sites, we have the opportunity to learn more not only about the history and culture of these Pueblos, but also about the first interaction between European and Native American cultures. The Cochiti Pueblo, in particular, is culturally and historically tied to these sites, which have tremendous historical and religious significance to the Pueblo. I am grateful for the continued support of the Pueblo de Cochiti for this legislation. This bill has strong local support, including the Santa Fe Board of County Commissioners, the City of Santa Fe, and the Archdiocese of Santa Fe. I would also like to thank the Archaeological Conservancy for its efforts over the past several years to identify and protect many of these sites, and in helping with this legislation.

Many of these archaeological sites are on Federal land administered by the Bureau of Land Management. BLM archaeologists have already provided extensive background research on many of these sites, and I was pleased that the agency supported a similar bill I introduced in the previous Congress. Last Congress the Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a hearing on this bill in Santa Fe. It was clear from that hearing that there is strong local support for protecting these sites. In fact nobody testified in opposition to the bill, at either the Santa Fe or Washington hearings.

This bill simply authorizes the BLM to work in a cooperative manner with interested landowners to protect sites on Federal and non-Federal lands. Last Congress we included several provisions to make clear that the bill did not infringe on private property rights.

Although the bill is non-controversial, we have been unable to get the legislation passed through both the House and Senate, although last Congress I was pleased that bill was favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and passed by the Senate as part of a larger public lands bill. In the years since I first introduced this bill, many irreplaceable archaeological resources have been lost, whether by vandalism, erosion, or other means. Enactment of the Galisteo Basin Archaeological Sites Protection Act will allow us to take the steps necessary to protect these resources and to allow for improved public understanding and interpretation of these sites.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to establish the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area in northern New Mexico. I am pleased that Senator Domenici is again joining me in sponsoring this bill. The Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area will be established as part of a collaborative effort between local residents, Indian tribes, businesses and local governments, who are working together to preserve the area.

By establishing the Northern Rio Grande National Heritage Area, I hope to commemorate the significant but complex heritage of northern New Mexico communities and Indian tribes, from the pre-Spanish colonization period to present day. Establishing a National Heritage Area will benefit the northern New Mexico communities, local residents, students, and visitors, as well as help the local protection and interpretation of the unique cultural, historical, and natural resources of northern New Mexico.

Last Congress, similar legislation was considered and favorably reported from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and passed by the Senate by unanimous consent as part of a comprehensive heritage area bill. Unfortunately, the House was not able to consider the bill prior to the sine die adjournment of the Congress. Since the bill is non-controversial and has already passed the Senate, it is my hope that we will be able to move it through the Committee and to the floor as soon as possible.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill that has significance for the entire Great Plains region of our Nation. It will establish a program for the hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring of the High Plains Aquifer, which extends from Wyoming to New Mexico and Texas. This legislation was the subject of a hearing last Congress before the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is the same as legislation that was unanimously agreed to by the full Senate last year. I am pleased to be joined by Senators Brownback and Domenici in introducing this bill.

The High Plains Aquifer, which is comprised in large part by the Ogallala Aquifer, extends under eight states: Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming. It is experiencing alarming declines in its water levels. This aquifer is the source of water for farmers and communities throughout the Great Plains region. The legislation I am introducing today is intended to ensure that sound and objective science is available with respect to the hydrology and geology of the High Plains Aquifer.

This bill, the ``High Plains Aquifer Hydrogeologic Characterization, Mapping, Modeling and Monitoring Act,'' would direct the Secretary of the Interior to develop and carry out a comprehensive hydrogeologic characterization, mapping, modeling and monitoring program for the High Plains Aquifer. The Secretary is directed to work in conjunction with the eight High Plains Aquifer States in carrying out this program. The U.S. Geological Survey and the States will work in cooperation to further the goals of this program, with half of the available funds directed to the State component of the program.

A reliable source of groundwater is essential to the well-being and livelihoods of people in the Great Plains region. Local towns and rural areas are dependent on the use of groundwater for drinking water, ranching, farming, and other commercial uses. Yet many areas overlying the Ogallala Aquifer have experienced a dramatic depletion of this groundwater resource. The problem we are confronting is that the aquifer is not sustainable, and it is being depleted rapidly. This threatens the way of life of all who live on the High Plains.

The bill I am introducing today would help ensure that the relevant science needed to address this problem is available so that we will have a better understanding of the resources of

the High Plains Aquifer. I ask that my colleagues join me in once again supporting this bill.

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

There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with the support of my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate during the 107th Congress, would assist the City of Albuquerque, by clearing its title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. More specifically, it would allow the City to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens and the entire State of New Mexico.

The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. The facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. In pursuit of the balance of the project, the City, in 1997, purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District, (MRGCD), for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach has been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, has been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes.

In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, in had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership.

This dispute is delaying the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay with be both indefinite and unnecessary. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the Federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is very high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide.

I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue which is important to the citizens of my State. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time-consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by Federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce, along with my colleague Senator Domenici, legislation to designate Fort Bayard in New Mexico as a National Historic Landmark.

Fort Bayard is significant not only for the role it played as a military post in fostering early settlement in the region, but for its role as a nationally important tuberculosis sanatorium and hospital. During the 99 years spanning its establishment in 1866 through its closing as a Veterans Administration hospital in 1965, Fort Bayard served as the most prominent evidence of the Federal Government's role in southwestern New Mexico. Fort Bayard has recently been listed on the National Register of Historic Places in recognition of the historical significance of the site.

From 1866 to 1899, Fort Bayard functioned as an Army post while its soldiers, many of them African-American, or Buffalo Soldiers, protected settlers working in the nearby mining district. These Buffalo Soldiers were a mainstay of the Army during the late Apache wars and fought heroically in numerous skirmishes. Like many soldiers who served at Fort Bayard, some of the Buffalo Soldiers remained in the area following their discharge. Lines of headstones noting the names of men and their various Buffalo Soldier units remain in the older section of what is now the National Cemetery. In 1992, these soldiers were recognized for their bravery when a Buffalo Soldier Memorial statue was dedicated at the center of the Fort Bayard parade ground. It gradually became apparent that the Army's extensive frontier fort system was no longer necessary. By 1890, it was clear that the era of the western frontier, at least from the Army's perspective, had ended. Fort Bayard was scheduled for closure in 1899.

Even as the last detachment of the 9th U.S. Cavalry prepared to depart the discontinued post, new federal occupants were arriving at Fort Bayard. On August 28, 1899, the War Department authorized the surgeon-general to establish a general hospital for use as a military sanatorium. This would be the first sanatorium dedicated to the treatment of officers and enlisted men of the Army suffering from pulmonary tuberculosis. At 6,100 ft. and with a dry, sunny climate, the fort lay within what proponents of climatological therapy termed the ``zone of immunity.'' By 1919, the cumulative effect of over 15 years of construction and improvement projects was the creation of a small, nearly self-sufficient community.

In 1920, the War Department closed the sanatorium and the United States Public Health Service assumed control of the facility. A second phase occurred in 1922 when a new agency, the Veterans' Bureau, was created within the Treasury Department and charged with operating hospitals throughout the country whose clientele were veterans requiring medical services. As a result, in the summer of 1922 the United States General Hospital at Fort Bayard was transferred to the Veterans' Bureau and became known as United States Veterans' Hospital No. 55. Its mission of treating those afflicted with tuberculosis, however, remained the same.

By 1965, there was no longer a need for a tuberculosis facility located at a high elevation in a dry climate, and the Veterans' Administration decided to close the hospital in that year. However, in part because of the concerns of the local communities that depended upon the hospital, the State of New Mexico assumed responsibility for the facility and 484 acres of the former military reservation. Since then, the State has used it for geriatric, as well as drug and alcohol rehabilitation and orthopedic programs. Because of the extensive cemetery dating to the fort and sanatorium eras at Fort Bayard, the State of New Mexico transferred 16 acres in 1975 for the creation of the Fort Bayard National Cemetery, administered by the Veterans' Administration.

For these and many other reasons, I believe it is clear that Fort Bayard is historically significant and merits recognition as a National Historic Landmark. Fort Bayard illuminates a rich and complex story that is important to the entire nation.

Last Congress identical legislation was considered and favorably reported by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and included in a larger package of public land bills which passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Since there is broad local support for the bill, and it has already received the approval of the Senate, it is my hope that we can expeditiously consider the bill this year.

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

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes in morning business to speak about my priorities this year in Federal transportation funding. I think all Senators are probably aware that Congress must reauthorize the 6-year surface transportation bill in 2003.

As I travel around my State, I continue to hear frequently from citizens about the need to improve our basic transportation infrastructure, including highways and transit. Access to a high- quality transportation system is an essential element in economic development, and I believe the Federal Government has an important role to play in helping communities build and maintain the basic transportation infrastructure that businesses need.

Thus, the reauthorization this year of Federal transportation funding will be essential if New Mexico is to have the high-quality transportation system it needs to attract new jobs and businesses to our State. Safe and efficient highways and public transit are especially important for economic developments in the rural parts of my State. Basic transportation infrastructure is also vital to our communities, schools, and families, and helps support everyday life.

The most recent 6-year transportation act, known as TEA-21, was enacted in 1998. TEA-21 has been a good piece of legislation for my State, and I was pleased to support the bill. One of the key improvements Congress made in 1998 was to establish a firewall that, for the first time, ensured all tax receipts deposited in the Highway trust fund were fully used each year for transportation projects.

Under TEA-21, New Mexico has made substantial progress in upgrading key highways and transit programs in both urban and rural areas all across the State. As a result of the higher Federal highway funding provided under the act, in the past 6 years New Mexico has been able to complete a number of much-needed transportation projects.

For example, Highway 285 was upgraded to four lanes between Carlsbad and Interstate 40; US 550 is now four lanes all the way from Bernalillo to Bloomfield; the Big I in Albuquerque was completely rebuilt; US 54 is now four-lanes between El Paso and Tularosa; and the Santa Fe bypass was opened. In addition, US 70 will soon be upgraded to four lanes from Las Cruces to Texico, and work is now underway to upgrade US 84/285 between Santa Fe and Poloaque. I do believe each of these projects will contribute significantly to improving highway safety and efficiency in my State.

TEA-21 has also helped New Mexico improve transit services both in our cities and in rural areas. A number of communities have been able to obtain new transit vehicles and equipment with grants from the Federal Transit Administration. For example, the Alvarado transit center was opened in Albuquerque and Federal funds have been used to purchase new transit equipment and facilities in communities including Albuquerque, Santa Fe, Las Cruces, Rio Rancho, Farmington, Taos, Angel Fire, Carlsbad, Clovis, and Los Lunas. In addition, Albuquerque initiated a study of a new high-capacity transportation system, and steps are being taken to preserve the Santa-Fe-to-El-Dorado rail line for future use.

Throughout its history, New Mexico has played a key role in the transportation system of this country. The original Spanish settlers established the Camino Real between Santa Fe and Mexico City. In the last century, our Nation's first transcontinental highway, Route 66, passed through New Mexico.

Today, New Mexico continues to provide a critical link in our Nation's interstate and international transportation network, including trade with Mexico. However, we are a State with limited financial resources to deal with the transportation needs of what is essentially our portion of a vast national system.

Mr. President, in total land area New Mexico is the fifth largest state in the Union, but we have only 0.6 percent of the national population. At the same time, New Mexico has over 2 percent of the interstate highway system miles and slightly less than 2 percent of the total miles on the national highway system. Moreover, because of our vast land area and predominantly rural character, New Mexicans average more miles of driving per capita than the residents of every other State but one.

Clearly, in light of its size and vast network of roads, the transportation needs of my State far outstrip the ability of New Mexico's sparse population to provide the funds needed to maintain and improve the State's critical piece of the national transportation system.

Consequently, my top priority in the reauthorization of the highway bill will be to ensure that New Mexico receives its fair share of Federal transportation dollars for both highways and transit programs. The majority of the funding in the transportation bill is distributed directly to States and local governments under congressionally set formulas. I will be working to make sure the new formulae fully reflect New Mexico's transportation needs, including our extensive miles of important national roads and highways.

Mr. President, another of my top priorities in the reauthorization will be to continue a number of the critical programs in TEA-21 that greatly benefit New Mexico. Two of these important programs are the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program, known as CMAQ, and the Enhancements program, both of which help manage some of the negative impacts of transportation on our communities.

At the same time, I will oppose efforts to weaken rules that protect the environment. I will also oppose attempts to limit the ability of local communities to participate in the planning and development of transportation projects that affect them.

In addition, I fully support reauthorizing the Scenic Byways program that helps communities in New Mexico enhance facilities for visitors traveling our rural highways. New Mexico now has 27 scenic byways, including six that have achieved the designation of National Scenic Byways.

I also believe we should continue to make progress in improving the safety of our highways as well as in reducing the staggering number of traffic fatalities and injures caused by drunk drivers. I will be looking for ways to strengthen both of these important Federal programs when Congress debates the bill this year.

In addition to supporting the continuation of a number of important programs already in TEA-21, I will be authoring a series of bills that I hope the Senate will include in the final reauthorization bill.

First, I will reintroduce my bill to authorize a new Federal program to upgrade rural two-lane roads on the national highway system to four- lane highways. This $1.8 million, 6-year national program targets funds to four-lane roads in New Mexico such as US 64/87 between Clayton and Raton, US 54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US 62/180 south of Carlsbad, and US 666 south of Shiprock.

Second, I will introduce legislation to extend and expand the Indian Reservation Roads Program, which is so important to Indian communities in New Mexico. This program provides direct funding to tribes in 33 states to improve transportation. My bill increase the annual funding for tribal roads from $275 million to $500 million, reestablishes a separate $15 million per-year program to repair bridges on tribal lands, and dedicates $20 million per year in new Federal funding for tribal transit projects.

Third, I will introduce legislation to establish a new University Technology Center at New Mexico State University in collaboration with the University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University. The focus of the new center is on nondestructive methods to measure the wear and tear on highway bridges.

Fourth, I will reintroduce a bill to designate US Highway 54 between El Paso, Texas, and Wichita, Kansas, as the SPIRIT High Priority Corridor on the national highway system. In New Mexico, the route runs for about 350 miles from the southern border with Texas, through Alamogordo, Carrizozo, Vaughn, Santa Rosa, and Tucumcari, to Nara Visa. This designation will help focus attention on the need to upgrade this heavily traveled highway to four lanes. The bill was cosponsored last year by Senators Roberts, Inhofe, Hutchison, and Domenici.

Fifth, I will introduce legislation to reauthorize the special funding that goes directly to San Juan and McKinley Counties in New Mexico, as well as neighboring counties in Arizona and Utah, to help maintain roads used by school buses on the Navajo Reservation. In TEA- 21, Congress provided $1.5 million per year for 6 years to counties in the three States to help ensure that buses carrying children to school have passable roads. It is not acceptable when Indian children can't attend school simply because their school buses couldn't get through on the many poor quality roads in the region.

Sixth, I will reintroduce my bill to authorize Los Alamos National Laboratory to continue its advanced computer-modeling project to develop the National Transportation Modeling and Analysis Program, or NATMAP. The program will provide a valuable tool for analyzing the national transportation system, including cars, trucks, railroads, barges and airplanes, as a single integrated system. The program will also be valuable in assessing the impacts of disruptions to any portion of the transportation network.

I hope each of these bills will gain bipartisan support and will be included in the comprehensive 6-year reauthorization bill. I will have more to say about each of these six initiatives over the next few weeks as the bills are introduced.

Finally, one of the other important parts of the transportation bill is the authorization of funding for individual high-priority highway and transit projects around the State. In 1998, I helped secure funding for a number of highway projects throughout New Mexico, including upgrades of highways 84/285 and 70, Unser Boulevard, Paseo del Norte, and the uptown and northwest areas of Albuquerque and Rio Rancho.

This year, some of the projects for which I intend to pursue funding include reconstruction of the access road from Interstate 40 to the Double Eagle II airport in anticipation of the relocation of Eclipse Aviation; construction of a new Paseo del Volcan on the northwest side of Albuquerque and Rio Rancho; reconstruction of the I-40 and Coors Boulevard interchange; construction of a new interchange on Interstate 25 to serve Mesa del Sol; and expansion of the I-25 interchange in Belen.

In the rural areas of New Mexico, I will be seeking Federal funding to complete four-lane upgrades of the Ports-to-Plains corridor along US 64/87 between Clayton and Raton, US 54 from Tularosa to Nara Visa, US 62/180 south of Carlsbad, and US 666 south of Shiprock.

For transit projects, one of my priorities will be an authorization for the design and construction of a high-capacity transit corridor in Albuquerque. This effort was first initiated in 1998. The project has now been through the required preliminary studies and is ready to move forward with preliminary design for either a light-rail system or a system with dedicated bus lanes. In addition, I will be seeking an authorization to continue efforts to preserve the Santa Fe El Dorado rail line as a possible commuter route.

In addition to funding for my priority highway and transit projects, a large number of additional projects will be funded directly by the State and local governments with formula grants funds provided under the 6-year transportation bill.

I know reauthorizing the transportation bill is a massive effort. A number of committees here in the Senate will be involved, including the Finance Committee where I am a member. I look forward to working this year with the Environment and Public Works Committee, including Chairman Inhofe and Senator Jeffords, on the highway programs in the bill, and with the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, including Chairman Shelby and Senator Sarbanes, on the transit portion of this important legislation. I do believe that reauthorization of the transportation bill is critical to the citizens of New Mexico and to the Nation. I hope we can complete a bipartisan bill this year in a timely manner.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Enzi, Lincoln, Baucus, Smith, Harkin, Domenici, Johnson, Nelson of Nebraska, and Dayton entitled the ``Medicaid Safety Net Improvement Act of 2003.'' This legislation is important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's safety

net hospitals that provide critical health care access to our Nation's 41.2 million uninsured citizens, including 373,000 in New Mexico, through the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program.

In recognition of the burden certain hospitals bear in providing a large share of health services to the low-income patients, including Medicaid and the uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program in the mid-1980's to give additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share'' hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an important part of statewide systems of health care access for the uninsured.''

Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Infact But Endangered,'' the National Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report notes, ``. . . there are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.'' In fact, for a number of states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital, Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, Lea Regional Hospital, Plains Regional Medical Center, Memorial Medical Center, and others.

In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute, the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six States was less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five States than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of $218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained.

As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed Federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains far less, or just about one-third, of the national average. The 18 States that would benefit from this legislation include: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I would add that the legislation does not impact the Federal DSH allotments in other States but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of Federal funds to ``extremely low-DSH States.''

Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more aggressively, without regard to a State's real need of such funds.'' Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of Federal funds should be established among States.''

Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for ``extremely low-DSH States'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by redistributing or taking money away from other States.

Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable or unwilling to serve.

As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net system necessary, it is essential that national, State, and local policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these institutions and providers to carry out their missions.''

I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, for their recognition of this problem and inclusion of this language in several bills they introduced in the last Congress, S. 3018, ``Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002'' and S. 2873, ``Improving Our Well-Being Act of 2002.''

Our Nation's governors remain very concerned as well. In a letter written to Senators Baucus and Grassley on October 23, 2002, the governors of the States of Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, Wisconsin, and Minnesota wrote, ``Our 15, which is now 18, States are in distress and cannot wait another year for some measure of relief. We strongly urge you to use any vehicle available to include the low-DSH issue. The States are seeking to raise the cap implemented two years ago from 1 percent to 3 percent to provide them some flexibility in addressing the increasing strain facing our safety net hospitals.''

The governors add, ``The survival of many community hospitals, the lifeline for many rural community's health care and economy in our States, are being threatened. Current disparities in DSH funding severely harm our States' most vulnerable safety net hospitals.''

At a time of growing numbers of uninsured and increased financial strain on our Nation's safety net, we need to increase the ability of ``extremely low-DSH States'' to address the problems facing their safety net and to reduce the current inequity in funding among the States.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation with Senators Enzi, Lincoln, Baucus, Smith, Harkin, Domenici, Johnson, Nelson of Nebraska, and Dayton entitled the ``Medicaid Safety Net Improvement Act of 2003.'' This legislation is important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's safety

net hospitals that provide critical health care access to our Nation's 41.2 million uninsured citizens, including 373,000 in New Mexico, through the Medicaid disproportionate share hospital, or DSH, program.

In recognition of the burden certain hospitals bear in providing a large share of health services to the low-income patients, including Medicaid and the uninsured, the Congress established the Medicaid DSH program in the mid-1980's to give additional funding to support such ``disproportionate share'' hospitals. By providing financial relief to these hospitals, the Medicaid DSH program maintains hospital access for the poor. As the National Governors' Association has said, ``Medicaid DSH's funds are an important part of statewide systems of health care access for the uninsured.''

Recent reports by the Institute of Medicine entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Infact But Endangered,'' the National Association of Public Hospitals entitled ``The Dependence of Safety Net Hospitals'' and the Commonwealth Fund entitled ``A Shared Responsibility: Academic Health Centers and the Provision of Care to the Poor and Uninsured'' have all highlighted the importance of the Medicaid DSH program to our health care safety net.

Unfortunately, as the Commonwealth Fund report notes, ``. . . there are large inequities in how these funds are distributed among states.'' In fact, for a number of states, including New Mexico, our federal DSH allotments are not allowed to exceed 1 percent of our state's Medicaid program costs. In comparison, the average state spends around 9 percent of its Medicaid funding on DSH. This disparity and lack of Medicaid DSH in ``extremely low-DSH states'' threatens the viability of our safety net providers. In New Mexico, these funds are critical but inadequate to hospitals all across our state, including University Hospital, Eastern New Mexico Regional Hospital, Lea Regional Hospital, Plains Regional Medical Center, Memorial Medical Center, and others.

In an analysis of the Medicaid DSH program by the Urban Institute, the total amount of federal Medicaid DSH payments in six States was less than $1 per Medicaid and uninsured individual compared to five States than had DSH spending in excess of $500 per Medicaid and uninsured individual. That figure was just $14.91 per Medicaid and uninsured person in New Mexico. Compared to the average expenditure of $218.96 across the country, such disparities cannot be sustained.

As a result, this bipartisan legislation increases the allowed Federal Medicaid DSH allotment in the ``extremely low-DSH states'' from 1 percent to 3 percent of Medicaid program costs, which remains far less, or just about one-third, of the national average. The 18 States that would benefit from this legislation include: Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I would add that the legislation does not impact the Federal DSH allotments in other States but only seeks greater equity by raising the share of Federal funds to ``extremely low-DSH States.''

Once again, the Commonwealth Fund recommends such action. As the report finds, ``States with small DSH programs are not permitted to increase the relative size of their DSH programs . . . [C]urrent policy simply rewards the programs that acted quickly and more aggressively, without regard to a State's real need of such funds.'' Therefore, the report concludes, ``. . . greater equity in the use of Federal funds should be established among States.''

Again, this is achieved in our legislation by raising the limits for ``extremely low-DSH States'' from 1 percent to 3 percent and not by redistributing or taking money away from other States.

Failure to support these critical hospitals could have a devastating impact not only on the low-income and vulnerable populations who depend on them for care but also on other providers throughout the communities that rely on the safety net to care for patients whom they are unable or unwilling to serve.

As the Institute of Medicine's report entitled ``America's Health Care Safety Net: Intact But Endangered'' states, ``Until the nation addresses the underlying problems that make the health care safety net system necessary, it is essential that national, State, and local policy makers protect and perhaps enhance the ability of these institutions and providers to carry out their missions.''

I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley, the leaders of the Senate Finance Committee, for their recognition of this problem and inclusion of this language in several bills they introduced in the last Congress, S. 3018, ``Beneficiary Access to Care and Medicare Equity Act of 2002'' and S. 2873, ``Improving Our Well-Being Act of 2002.''

Our Nation's governors remain very concerned as well. In a letter written to Senators Baucus and Grassley on October 23, 2002, the governors of the States of Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico, Utah, Wisconsin, and Minnesota wrote, ``Our 15, which is now 18, States are in distress and cannot wait another year for some measure of relief. We strongly urge you to use any vehicle available to include the low-DSH issue. The States are seeking to raise the cap implemented two years ago from 1 percent to 3 percent to provide them some flexibility in addressing the increasing strain facing our safety net hospitals.''

The governors add, ``The survival of many community hospitals, the lifeline for many rural community's health care and economy in our States, are being threatened. Current disparities in DSH funding severely harm our States' most vulnerable safety net hospitals.''

At a time of growing numbers of uninsured and increased financial strain on our Nation's safety net, we need to increase the ability of ``extremely low-DSH States'' to address the problems facing their safety net and to reduce the current inequity in funding among the States.

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

Mr. President, I also want to speak in favor of the amendment my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, has offered. I commend him and Senator Harkin, in particular, for the leadership they have shown in trying to maintain an adequate level of funding for education. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment and the amendment Senator Harkin will offer later today.

The pending omnibus appropriations bill we are debating on the floor is woefully inadequate when it comes to funding education. Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd have just pointed out that last year, with great acclaim, we passed the No Child Left Behind Act, and I supported that. I believe there are accountability provisions in that act that will move us in the way of implementing major changes in our educational system and will bring us a long way toward ensuring equal educational opportunity for all children in this country.

What we were starting to do with that act, as I understood it, was to work in partnership with States and local governments to see this improvement occur, and part of that partnership was that we would help provide resources to the schools and the teachers so that those children could succeed.

The President's budget abandoned that effort. This bill that we have on the floor today--although it is slightly better than the President's budget--also abandons the promise to leave no child behind.

Like the President's budget, the pending bill underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act by several billion dollars. I do think the context is important here. The context is the one to which Senator Kennedy referred. We are being urged as a Congress and a nation to embrace some $660 billion or $670 billion worth of new tax cuts. At the same time, we are being told now there is not enough money to adequately fund the No Child Left Behind Act: We cannot make good on the promise that we made when we passed that act because we cannot afford it, but, by the way, why don't you speed up and pass this $660 billion tax bill, which is really focused on assisting those who are the best off in our society.

So you have an interesting juxtaposition, where tax cuts are targeted at the wealthiest versus having adequate funding for programs to benefit our most disadvantaged children. That is the choice we are going to have to make in the Senate this afternoon.

Unlike the President's budget, this bill has a small increase for programs authorized in the No Child Left Behind Act--an increase of $400 million. But that funding level will mean a significant cut in services because of expected inflation. Inflation is not going to be much; it is expected to be 1.8 percent. But even with that, we are not providing the funds to make up for it. The only significant increases for education in the bill are a billion dollars for title I and a billion dollars for IDEA.

This bill--like the President's budget--makes those increases at the expense of other very crucial programs. In addition, even with the increase for title I--the program targeted on districts and schools with large numbers of our most disadvantaged students--in this bill, the program is $4.6 billion short of the levels agreed to on a bipartisan basis when we passed the No Child Left Behind Act.

The proposed funding level will not be sufficient to keep pace with the growth in child poverty. It will mean that over 6 million poor children will in fact be left behind.

If we truly intend to leave no child behind, then education funding, particularly targeted at this group of disadvantaged children, needs to be our top priority.

The increase for IDEA is also insufficient. I am sure people will come to the floor today and say, no, we are increasing IDEA. At the rate of increase provided for in the underlying bill today, it will only take us 33 more years to get to the level we promised the Federal Government achieve when we enacted that program. That is covering 40 percent of the cost of that program. So the funding level in this year's bill is a mere 17 percent of those costs.

The pending amendment would go a long way toward ensuring that no child, in fact, will be left behind. If Senator Kennedy's amendment prevails--which I hope it will--we will have over 2 million more needy children who will be fully served by the title I program. It will provide sufficient funding to hire 50,000 fully qualified new teachers. It will provide afterschool opportunities for a million more children. Every one of the 10,000 schools currently identified as not meeting the standards provided in the No Child Left Behind Act will be able to implement research-based school reform models. There are 200,000 college students nationally who will be able to receive a Pell grant to defray the cost of college. So this amendment can make a great difference.

Let me give a few statistics about my home State of New Mexico, and then I will yield to my colleagues who also wish to speak on this important amendment.

This amendment will provide the Albuquerque Public Schools $9.8 million in increased funding. In my home State, we will receive approximately $54 million under this amendment; 1,400 more college students will be eligible for a Pell grant in New Mexico and over 42,000 grant recipients will receive a substantial increase.

This is an important amendment for my State, and it is an important

amendment for all the schoolchildren in the country. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I first want to offer a few comments about the very important birthday of the greatest civil rights leader of our time, Dr. Martin Luther King, and give some thoughts about the issue of civil rights and our commitment to equal opportunities for all Americans.

Obviously, we need to continue to fight to protect the rights of all Americans by supporting and ensuring full implementation of the antidiscrimination laws. But we also need to ensure that programs designed to create equal opportunity for all groups and for all individuals in our society in critical areas such as education and health care are fully implemented.

I believe an important test of our commitment to equality is an examination of the broader policy choices we make and the priorities we set as we allocate Federal dollars.

We have heard a great deal from the administration, and continue to, about their championing of minorities and the disadvantaged. But, unfortunately, there seems to me to be a pattern of shortchanging the programs and the policy initiatives that are most meaningful to those very groups, at least those groups as I visit with them in my home State.

In the context of education--which the Presiding Officer is extremely well versed in--the administration's position has embraced the Children's Defense Fund slogan, which is: We Should Leave No Child Behind.

Last Congress, on a bipartisan basis, we enacted the No Child Left Behind Act which, for the first time, demands that our educational system demonstrate progress for all children by closing existing achievement gaps. I believe the accountability provisions in that law can have a revolutionary impact on our educational system and can bring us a great distance toward ensuring equal educational opportunities for all children.

But we need to back up these mandates and these requirements by working in partnership with State and local governments to provide the resources the schools and the teachers need to help all of our children to succeed. And I do not believe we have seen a real commitment to do that from this administration.

The pending fiscal year 2003 budget, which we are getting ready to debate, even as soon as this afternoon, underfunds the No Child Left Behind Act by $7 billion. The President included a small increase from the title I program--the program targeted to districts and schools with large numbers of disadvantaged students--but even with this increase, the program remains underfunded by $5 billion. The proposed funding level will not be sufficient to keep pace with the growth in child poverty. It will mean over 6 million poor children will be left behind.

In addition, the President's budget zero funds programs that are targeted at assisting minority groups. One of those is the dropout prevention program which we wrote into that law.

The dropout rate for Hispanic students in this country is almost three times that for non-Hispanic white students. Most recent data-- 1999 through 2000--shows a dropout rate among white non-Hispanic students of 10 percent; among Hispanic students, just over 27 percent. These children are being left behind. Yet despite bipartisan agreement during the negotiations on the No Child Left Behind Act to include this program, to include this initiative at the Federal level, to assist with dropout prevention efforts in our high schools and in our middle schools, the administration has proposed zero funding for the program. They propose zero funding in the 2003 fiscal year budget, which we are going to be debating later today or tomorrow; and I fear they may propose zero funding for the dropout prevention program in the new budget we see at the beginning of February.

The refusal to fund this program is an even greater problem in light of the new focus on student performance and assessment. The increased focus on assessments has led many to fear dropout rates will increase as States strive to meet their academic performance goals. There is a danger that kids who are not doing well on tests will be the ones most likely to drop out. We tried to address the issue by including a provision in the new law that requires schools to show that increased test scores do not come at the expense of increased dropout rates. But the administration's recent regulations interpreting the new law gut this protection by allowing schools to claim progress even if dropout rates for some groups increase.

If we truly intend to leave no child behind--and I do believe there was good faith in the effort to put this bill together--educational funding, particularly funding for programs such as this I have just discussed that are targeted toward the most disadvantaged children--and this includes a disproportionately large number of minorities--these programs need to be our top priority, not our lowest priority.

We also see misconceived priorities in the area of health care. The Institute of Medicine at the National Academy of Sciences said in a report they issued.

[A] large body of published research reveals that racial and ethnic minorities experience a lower quality of health services, and are less likely to receive even routine medical procedures than are white Americans.

One of the number of recommendations the report made--and has been ignored, thus far, by the administration--is the recommendation to ensure public health care payors--that means Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, specifically--that the health beneficiaries of those programs are brought to the same level in their benefits as those who get their benefits through the private sector.

In the area of providing coverage to low-income pregnant women, the administration first supported and then turned its back on a bipartisan approach to cover low-income pregnant women with access to the full array of prenatal, delivery, and postpartum care that is typical in the private sector. This bipartisan effort--Senator Bond was very involved in this, as were other Senators on both the Republican side and Democratic side--the bipartisan effort would improve the outcomes of deliveries for both pregnant women and their children, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities who are disproportionately enrolled in these public sector programs.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CDC, African

American women have mortality rates over four times higher than that of non-Hispanic whites. American Indian/Alaska Natives, Asian/Pacific Islanders, and Hispanic women have mortality rates 67 percent, 55 percent, and 41 percent, respectively, that are higher than non- Hispanic whites.

To address this problem, we have pushed to provide States the option to provide comprehensive coverage to pregnant women, including lifesaving postpartum care through the CHIP program. The Bush administration has decided to reject that approach and, instead, proposed a regulation that does not provide comprehensive coverage such as postpartum care to pregnant women. The administration has chosen, instead, to pursue an ideological agenda with respect to women's health and abortion rather than to address this most basic health issue for women and infants.

There are other areas that show a lack of commitment to equal opportunity for Americans. For example, the administration alleges it wants to eliminate poverty through progressive welfare-to-work policies. I heard the President yesterday indicating his desire that people work 40 hours a week. I favor requiring people to work whatever is reasonable, but we have seen great resistance from the administration in our efforts to increase child care funding, which is essential for the mothers we are now requiring to go to work. We need to see that that issue is adequately addressed. And the administration needs to support our efforts to increase child care funding as part of any reauthorization of the welfare legislation.

There has been a lot of discussion in the last few days about the unfairness and inequities in the tax proposal of the administration and how that is clearly skewed to help the wealthy and not to help the average American of whatever racial or ethnic background.

In the area of pension reform, again, minorities are less likely to work for an employer that offers a retirement plan. We need to do something significant to try to expand pension coverage in this country. That is a great failing. Well over half of the private sector employees in my State do not have pension coverage, and that is an issue that needs addressing as much as anything else in the pension area.

To summarize my views, we need to provide equal access to high quality education, equal access to adequate health care, and to child care. We need to support equitable tax policies. That is what is essential if we are going to support equity and equality and really follow through on the rhetoric which we hear related to the birthday of Martin Luther King.