Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the full committee of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday, May 8, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on the nomination of Guy F. Caruso to be Administrator of the Energy Information Administration. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should sent two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Attn: Majority Staff, 264 Dirksen Senate Office Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact Sam Fowler on 202-224-7571 or Amanda Goldman on 202-224-6836.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Torricelli, and Corzine entitled the ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' is designed to address the hardship caused by Federal limitations on Medicaid reimbursement to health care providers and states for health services provided to immigrants. Despite the fact that immigration is a Federal responsibility, medical providers, who have a legal and ethical responsibility to save lives regardless of immigration status, and State and local governments bear most of the costs for services provided to immigrants. The bill expressly allows States and health care providers to receive Medicaid reimbursement for dialysis and chemotherapy services, prenatal care, and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases provided to immigrants; reauthorizes funding, which was provided between fiscal years 1998 and 2001 but expired this year, in the increased amount of $50 million annually for fiscal years 2003 to 2007 for unreimbursed emergency health services provided to immigrants; and clarifies that the federal government should not limit the ability of state or local governments to use their own funding to address the health care needs of immigrants within their communities. The Constitution of the United States establishes sole authority in the Federal Government to control immigration to this country. Despite that fact, the Federal Government often fails to take financial responsibility for the costs of immigration. Numerous studies also indicate that immigrants pay more to the Federal Government in the form of taxes than they receive in services, but State government and local communities and providers bear most of the costs of services provided to them. In Luna County, NM, for example, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service has a contract with the county to provide emergency medical services to the people in Luna County. Luna County is one of the poorest counties in the Nation with almost one- third of its citizens below poverty and with a per capita income at just 49 percent of the national average. Luna County has an extremely difficult time addressing the needs of its own citizens due to a high level of need and limited resources. And yet, with respect to emergency medical services, Luna County, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service, and Mimbres Memorial Hospital must also respond to the numerous calls from federal officials at the port-of-entry near Columbus, NM, to treat or transport an injured or ill immigrants. The Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service is located just three miles from the Columbus port-of-entry and is 32 miles from Mimbres Memorial Hospital in Deming, NM. Moreover, the ambulance service is also called in when individuals are apprehended after crossing illegally if injury or illness results, often while in the custody of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS. Once treated, the Luna County Sheriff's Office is called to take them back from Deming to the Columbus port-of- entry where they are returned across the border to their homes in Mexico. According to data collected by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition through a grant from the Department of Justice, in 1999, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service responded to 264 calls, of which 56 percent were at the port-of-entry and 52 percent were for patients residing outside of the United States. Of services billed, 59 percent were for treatment of non-U.S. resident patients and the vast majority of those bills went unpaid. In fact, for both the EMS system and the hospital, a large majority of billings sent to patients residing outside of the United States are returned as either unclaimed or undeliverable much less paid. To help the County and ambulance service, I secured $200,000 last year through the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for the costs of emergency medical services delivered to immigrants in this fiscal year. The funding, however, is just a temporary band-aid to a system that is poorly funded and cannot survive without the federal government living up to its responsibility to help pay the costs of health services delivered to immigrants. This bill helps address that responsibility. As Ronald Reagan, then Governor of the State of California, testified before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, ``the support of citizens of other countries shall be a fiscal obligation of the federal government.'' He added, ``States should not be required to support citizens of another country, when the state and county governments have no effective voice in determining admission standards.'' In response to such concerns, the Federal Government has taken two important steps over the years, providing for federal reimbursement for emergency care to low-income immigrants in 1986 and providing additional funding to states for unreimbursed costs delivered to immigrants in emergency situations in 1997. The first needs a technical change and the second, unfortunately, expired in 2001 and needs to be reauthorized. The first step that was taken occurred through the leadership of Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Representative Henry Waxman in 1986 and was signed into law by President Reagan. It provides for federal reimbursement through the Medicaid program to health providers for emergency care services provided to low-income immigrants. Services delivered to immigrants who are residents in the country may have the cost of their emergency care reimbursed through Medicaid--a joint federal and state program serving low-income and disabled people. However, in the case of Luna County, the majority of its cases are to immigrants who reside outside of the country, and therefore, do not qualify. This legislation clarifies that States may waive the residency requirement for an immigrant who either comes across the border under a temporary visa or is paroled into the country by INS. The bill also clarifies that, since dialysis and chemotherapy are life-threatening conditions, these services qualify as emergency care and are eligible for reimbursement by Medicaid. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, recently denied payment to the State of Arizona for such services and have forced the State to pay for such treatment with 100 percent state funding. This is, once again, a case of the federal government not fulfilling its responsibility and our bill corrects this problem. The ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' would also provide states the option to reimburse providers for the costs of prenatal care and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases to low-income immigrants. A January 2000 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that undocumented women with no prenatal care were four times more likely to deliver low birthweight American citizen infants and seven times more likely to deliver premature infants than undocumented women with prenatal care. Moreover, a child born in the United States of undocumented parents is a United States citizen. Simply stated, if a pregnant women is denied access to prenatal care due to immigration status, it is her child who is denied the opportunity to be ``well-born'' and the financial costs associated with poor outcomes are high. In addition, States and local governments often seek to ensure that all of their residents, including immigrants, are tested and treated for certain communicable diseases. It is in the interest of all citizens to ensure that everybody residing in this country is treated for communicable diseases. As Dr. Richard Brown, Director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research says, ``Tuberculosis and other communicable diseases do not respect distinctions between citizens and non-citizens . . . The key to controlling an outbreak of tuberculosis, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, or other communicable diseases is early identification of the source of infection and immediate intervention to treat all infected persons.'' Again, to address these problems, the bill would allow states to reimburse providers for the costs of prenatal care and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases to low-income immigrants through the Medicaid program. Another area where the Federal Government did take an important step to assume its responsibility for the costs of emergency health services delivered to immigrants was through $25 million in payments to States between fiscal year 1998 through 2001. The following 12 States were eligible for this additional funding over the four-year period, which expired at the end of last year: California, $11.3 million, Texas, $4.0 million, New York, $3.1 million, Florida, $2.0 million, Illinois, $1.6 million, New Jersey, $765,000, Arizona, $652,000, Massachusetts, $482,000, Virginia, $312,000, Washington, $295,000, Colorado, $255,000, and Maryland, $249,000. Unfortunately, that provision in law expired in 2001 and needs to be reauthorized. The ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' reauthorizes the program at $50 million between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, extends the number of qualifying States to 15, and requires that States pass those payments on to health care providers who are providing this care. This helps cover the costs associated with care to immigrants needing emergency care that do not qualify for Medicaid, such as men who do not meet the categorical requirements for Medicaid coverage. In addition, the bill clarifies that the 15 qualifying States are those that have the highest percentage of immigrants rather than the highest numbers, which assures States such as New Mexico are not inappropriately left out of the funding in the future. And finally, the bill clarifies that the Federal Government should not limit State or local governments from using their own funding to provide health services to immigrants in their communities. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from interfering in the authority by State and local governments to spend their own revenue as they see fit. Unfortunately, a provision in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, in 1996 has been interpreted by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn and some in the State of New Mexico, including the University of New Mexico Hospital, to preclude state and local governments from providing non-emergency care services, with the exceptions of immunizations and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases, unless the State decides to override the law by passing its own legislation specifically authorizing such services. Others have disagreed. El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriquez disagreed with the opinion of the Texas Attorney General in a August 14, 2001, letter by saying, ``There is nothing in the PRWORA that expressly prohibits providing health care to undocumented aliens . . . There are no enforcement mechanisms in the PRWORA, and there are no penalties directed at state or local governments.'' As a result, the public hospitals in El Paso, TX, and elsewhere in Texas have largely ignored the Texas Attorney General's opinion. However, in New Mexico, the University of New Mexico Hospital has chosen to tighten eligibility requirements for its health care services. They argue they are complying with the ambiguous law. An article that appears in an Internet-based publication entitled Borderlines entitled ``Debate Over Immigrant Health Care Heats Up in New Mexico'' in November 2001 notes, ``Critics say the move to deny health care to some U.S. residents, regardless of the reasons, is dangerous, impractical, and inhumane. It is dangerous, they argue, because anyone with a communicable disease, illegal immigrant or not, can spread that disease if not treated. The policy is impractical, they add, because an untreated health problem will likely worsen and require more expensive treatments later, often in emergency rooms. And denying non-emergency health care to people with serious, chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma, or cancer means they must endure more pain and suffering, often as their conditions deteriorate.'' As Dr. Catherine Torres of First Step Women's Health Center in Las Cruces, NM, and a member of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission notes, ``When do you treat a child with asthma? When [the child] can't breathe?'' This provision has also led to the unfortunate situation of imposing additional liability or malpractice exposure on health providers that work for state or local governmental health programs for denying needed health services to an individual. Health providers should not have to violate medical ethics of purposely denying needed health services to anyone and nor should they be exposed to additional liability because of a convoluted provision in federal law. As Dan Reyna, director of New Mexico's Border Health Office in Las Cruces, NM, adds, ``First, we're near an international border, we're not going to change that. Second, health care providers, both public and private, are not immigration officers for the Federal Government. And third, it's to the benefit of every state to protect community health and the quality of life of every resident. If you accept these primary premises, you have to provide preventative care services to everyone who needs it.'' I urge the passage of this legislation. Although it may not be popular, the federal government should help assume its responsibility for immigration and the costs associated with health services. We talk a great deal about personal responsibility when talking about welfare reform. It is time for the federal government to take on its responsibility as well. State and local governments and health providers, already stressed by the fact that our country has around 40 million uninsured residents, cannot take on these additional costs. I would like to thank Senators McCain, Torricelli, and Corzine for their support and help on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today with Senators McCain, Torricelli, and Corzine entitled the ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' is designed to address the hardship caused by Federal limitations on Medicaid reimbursement to health care providers and states for health services provided to immigrants. Despite the fact that immigration is a Federal responsibility, medical providers, who have a legal and ethical responsibility to save lives regardless of immigration status, and State and local governments bear most of the costs for services provided to immigrants. The bill expressly allows States and health care providers to receive Medicaid reimbursement for dialysis and chemotherapy services, prenatal care, and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases provided to immigrants; reauthorizes funding, which was provided between fiscal years 1998 and 2001 but expired this year, in the increased amount of $50 million annually for fiscal years 2003 to 2007 for unreimbursed emergency health services provided to immigrants; and clarifies that the federal government should not limit the ability of state or local governments to use their own funding to address the health care needs of immigrants within their communities. The Constitution of the United States establishes sole authority in the Federal Government to control immigration to this country. Despite that fact, the Federal Government often fails to take financial responsibility for the costs of immigration. Numerous studies also indicate that immigrants pay more to the Federal Government in the form of taxes than they receive in services, but State government and local communities and providers bear most of the costs of services provided to them. In Luna County, NM, for example, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service has a contract with the county to provide emergency medical services to the people in Luna County. Luna County is one of the poorest counties in the Nation with almost one- third of its citizens below poverty and with a per capita income at just 49 percent of the national average. Luna County has an extremely difficult time addressing the needs of its own citizens due to a high level of need and limited resources. And yet, with respect to emergency medical services, Luna County, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service, and Mimbres Memorial Hospital must also respond to the numerous calls from federal officials at the port-of-entry near Columbus, NM, to treat or transport an injured or ill immigrants. The Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service is located just three miles from the Columbus port-of-entry and is 32 miles from Mimbres Memorial Hospital in Deming, NM. Moreover, the ambulance service is also called in when individuals are apprehended after crossing illegally if injury or illness results, often while in the custody of the Federal Immigration and Naturalization Service, INS. Once treated, the Luna County Sheriff's Office is called to take them back from Deming to the Columbus port-of- entry where they are returned across the border to their homes in Mexico. According to data collected by the United States/Mexico Border Counties Coalition through a grant from the Department of Justice, in 1999, the Columbus Volunteer Fire Department and Ambulance Service responded to 264 calls, of which 56 percent were at the port-of-entry and 52 percent were for patients residing outside of the United States. Of services billed, 59 percent were for treatment of non-U.S. resident patients and the vast majority of those bills went unpaid. In fact, for both the EMS system and the hospital, a large majority of billings sent to patients residing outside of the United States are returned as either unclaimed or undeliverable much less paid. To help the County and ambulance service, I secured $200,000 last year through the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill for the costs of emergency medical services delivered to immigrants in this fiscal year. The funding, however, is just a temporary band-aid to a system that is poorly funded and cannot survive without the federal government living up to its responsibility to help pay the costs of health services delivered to immigrants. This bill helps address that responsibility. As Ronald Reagan, then Governor of the State of California, testified before the Senate Finance Committee in 1972, ``the support of citizens of other countries shall be a fiscal obligation of the federal government.'' He added, ``States should not be required to support citizens of another country, when the state and county governments have no effective voice in determining admission standards.'' In response to such concerns, the Federal Government has taken two important steps over the years, providing for federal reimbursement for emergency care to low-income immigrants in 1986 and providing additional funding to states for unreimbursed costs delivered to immigrants in emergency situations in 1997. The first needs a technical change and the second, unfortunately, expired in 2001 and needs to be reauthorized. The first step that was taken occurred through the leadership of Senator Lloyd Bentsen and Representative Henry Waxman in 1986 and was signed into law by President Reagan. It provides for federal reimbursement through the Medicaid program to health providers for emergency care services provided to low-income immigrants. Services delivered to immigrants who are residents in the country may have the cost of their emergency care reimbursed through Medicaid--a joint federal and state program serving low-income and disabled people. However, in the case of Luna County, the majority of its cases are to immigrants who reside outside of the country, and therefore, do not qualify. This legislation clarifies that States may waive the residency requirement for an immigrant who either comes across the border under a temporary visa or is paroled into the country by INS. The bill also clarifies that, since dialysis and chemotherapy are life-threatening conditions, these services qualify as emergency care and are eligible for reimbursement by Medicaid. Unfortunately, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, recently denied payment to the State of Arizona for such services and have forced the State to pay for such treatment with 100 percent state funding. This is, once again, a case of the federal government not fulfilling its responsibility and our bill corrects this problem. The ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' would also provide states the option to reimburse providers for the costs of prenatal care and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases to low-income immigrants. A January 2000 study in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology found that undocumented women with no prenatal care were four times more likely to deliver low birthweight American citizen infants and seven times more likely to deliver premature infants than undocumented women with prenatal care. Moreover, a child born in the United States of undocumented parents is a United States citizen. Simply stated, if a pregnant women is denied access to prenatal care due to immigration status, it is her child who is denied the opportunity to be ``well-born'' and the financial costs associated with poor outcomes are high. In addition, States and local governments often seek to ensure that all of their residents, including immigrants, are tested and treated for certain communicable diseases. It is in the interest of all citizens to ensure that everybody residing in this country is treated for communicable diseases. As Dr. Richard Brown, Director of UCLA's Center for Health Policy Research says, ``Tuberculosis and other communicable diseases do not respect distinctions between citizens and non-citizens . . . The key to controlling an outbreak of tuberculosis, hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, or other communicable diseases is early identification of the source of infection and immediate intervention to treat all infected persons.'' Again, to address these problems, the bill would allow states to reimburse providers for the costs of prenatal care and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases to low-income immigrants through the Medicaid program. Another area where the Federal Government did take an important step to assume its responsibility for the costs of emergency health services delivered to immigrants was through $25 million in payments to States between fiscal year 1998 through 2001. The following 12 States were eligible for this additional funding over the four-year period, which expired at the end of last year: California, $11.3 million, Texas, $4.0 million, New York, $3.1 million, Florida, $2.0 million, Illinois, $1.6 million, New Jersey, $765,000, Arizona, $652,000, Massachusetts, $482,000, Virginia, $312,000, Washington, $295,000, Colorado, $255,000, and Maryland, $249,000. Unfortunately, that provision in law expired in 2001 and needs to be reauthorized. The ``Federal Responsibility for Immigrant Health Act of 2002'' reauthorizes the program at $50 million between fiscal years 2003 and 2007, extends the number of qualifying States to 15, and requires that States pass those payments on to health care providers who are providing this care. This helps cover the costs associated with care to immigrants needing emergency care that do not qualify for Medicaid, such as men who do not meet the categorical requirements for Medicaid coverage. In addition, the bill clarifies that the 15 qualifying States are those that have the highest percentage of immigrants rather than the highest numbers, which assures States such as New Mexico are not inappropriately left out of the funding in the future. And finally, the bill clarifies that the Federal Government should not limit State or local governments from using their own funding to provide health services to immigrants in their communities. The 10th Amendment prevents the Federal Government from interfering in the authority by State and local governments to spend their own revenue as they see fit. Unfortunately, a provision in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, PRWORA, in 1996 has been interpreted by Texas Attorney General John Cornyn and some in the State of New Mexico, including the University of New Mexico Hospital, to preclude state and local governments from providing non-emergency care services, with the exceptions of immunizations and the testing and treatment of communicable diseases, unless the State decides to override the law by passing its own legislation specifically authorizing such services. Others have disagreed. El Paso County Attorney Jose Rodriquez disagreed with the opinion of the Texas Attorney General in a August 14, 2001, letter by saying, ``There is nothing in the PRWORA that expressly prohibits providing health care to undocumented aliens . . . There are no enforcement mechanisms in the PRWORA, and there are no penalties directed at state or local governments.'' As a result, the public hospitals in El Paso, TX, and elsewhere in Texas have largely ignored the Texas Attorney General's opinion. However, in New Mexico, the University of New Mexico Hospital has chosen to tighten eligibility requirements for its health care services. They argue they are complying with the ambiguous law. An article that appears in an Internet-based publication entitled Borderlines entitled ``Debate Over Immigrant Health Care Heats Up in New Mexico'' in November 2001 notes, ``Critics say the move to deny health care to some U.S. residents, regardless of the reasons, is dangerous, impractical, and inhumane. It is dangerous, they argue, because anyone with a communicable disease, illegal immigrant or not, can spread that disease if not treated. The policy is impractical, they add, because an untreated health problem will likely worsen and require more expensive treatments later, often in emergency rooms. And denying non-emergency health care to people with serious, chronic diseases like diabetes, asthma, or cancer means they must endure more pain and suffering, often as their conditions deteriorate.'' As Dr. Catherine Torres of First Step Women's Health Center in Las Cruces, NM, and a member of the U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission notes, ``When do you treat a child with asthma? When [the child] can't breathe?'' This provision has also led to the unfortunate situation of imposing additional liability or malpractice exposure on health providers that work for state or local governmental health programs for denying needed health services to an individual. Health providers should not have to violate medical ethics of purposely denying needed health services to anyone and nor should they be exposed to additional liability because of a convoluted provision in federal law. As Dan Reyna, director of New Mexico's Border Health Office in Las Cruces, NM, adds, ``First, we're near an international border, we're not going to change that. Second, health care providers, both public and private, are not immigration officers for the Federal Government. And third, it's to the benefit of every state to protect community health and the quality of life of every resident. If you accept these primary premises, you have to provide preventative care services to everyone who needs it.'' I urge the passage of this legislation. Although it may not be popular, the federal government should help assume its responsibility for immigration and the costs associated with health services. We talk a great deal about personal responsibility when talking about welfare reform. It is time for the federal government to take on its responsibility as well. State and local governments and health providers, already stressed by the fact that our country has around 40 million uninsured residents, cannot take on these additional costs. I would like to thank Senators McCain, Torricelli, and Corzine for their support and help on this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senate just voted on an amendment expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism. I voted for the amendment. But I also thought it necessary to explain my views so my vote and my position on this current Middle East situation is fully understood. I strongly agree with the main thrust of the amendment as I understand it; that is, the United States has a historically unique relationship with Israel; that we condemn violence; that we condemn terrorist attacks; that we condemn the loss of innocent lives of Israeli citizens; and we vigorously support efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East. I have a couple of concerns that I want to raise, concerns with the language of the amendment. The first concern is that the language implies--or can be read to imply--a blanket support for any and all actions that Israel may choose to take in this fight against terrorism. In my view, our President was right when he called upon Ariel Sharon to immediately withdraw troops and Israeli forces from Palestinian territories. He first made that demand on April 4 of this year. He repeated the demand that Israeli forces be withdrawn on the 6th of April. Our Secretary of State, Colin Powell, reiterated that position on behalf of our Government when he visited the Middle East on April 8. In my opinion, this recent occupation of Palestinian territories by Israeli troops is an obstacle--the continued occupation is an obstacle--to renewed negotiations for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It is very much in the interest of everyone involved that Israel withdraw those troops. While I understand fully that Israel views the current situation as a struggle for its very survival, a viable peace process requires temperance and compromise on both sides. A blanket statement of support for any U.S. ally causes me concern because there are times--and this is one of those times--when the United States needs to disagree with the actions of an ally, whether they are military actions or otherwise. In my view, when we believe our statements will serve the cause of peace, we should not be reluctant to state that disagreement. Long term, the only vision of peace that holds out hope for the Israelis and the Palestinians both is for Israel to live in a secure Israel that is not threatened by its neighbors and for the Palestinians to live in a secure Palestine. In the short term, the suicide bombings and violence against civilians in Israel must stop, and Palestinians must be allowed to rebuild their communities and return to some semblance of normalcy in their lives. The current violence and military reaction to that violence has led to a dangerous downward spiral that prevents any serious consideration of a negotiated settlement. I also point out one other shortcoming of the amendment that we have adopted; that is, that it says nothing about the need to assist the Palestinian people to live lives marked by peace and a reasonable standard of living. It is essential that the entire Palestinian people not be allowed to lose hope that some reconciliation between themselves and the Israelis can be achieved. While the United States has a unique relationship with Israel, as the amendment states, as a superpower, we also have a unique responsibility to bring the two sides together. We will lose that opportunity if we fail to acknowledge our concern and responsibility for the well-being of the Palestinian people. I hope very much that in the appropriations process which is still unfolding this year in Congress, aid will be provided both to Israel and to help with the rebuilding of communities in the Palestinian territories. Such aid, hopefully, will assist not only in establishing a reliable security regime for Israel and for the Palestinian people but also help both societies to rebuild their social and physical infrastructure to provide hope for their children and for future generations. Mr. President, I would also like to speak briefly about trade adjustment assistance, which is the subject we have been discussing most of this week, prior to consideration of this amendment related to Israel. I rise today in strong support of the trade adjustment assistance legislation offered in the Daschle trade amendment. I am extremely pleased that it has come to the floor and I look forward to the debate over the next few weeks. From my perspective, this is legislation that takes a very significant, positive, and long overdue step forward for American workers, firms, and communities. In 1962, when the Trade Expansion Act was being considered in Congress, the Kennedy administration established a basic rule concerning international trade and American workers. When someone loses their job as a result of trade agreements entered into by the U.S. Government, we have an obligation to assist these Americans in finding new employment. I think this is a very simple proposition really, one that recognizes that if the U.S. Government supports an open trading system, it is ultimately responsible for the negative impacts this policy has on its people. It suggests that if the U.S. Government believes that an open trading system provides long-term advantages for the United States, the short-terms costs must be addressed if the policy is to continue and the United States is to remain competitive. It suggests that if there is a collective interest that must be pursued by the United States in the international trading system, our individual and community interests must be simultaneously protected for the greater good of our country. In my view, the proposition makes even more sense now, as we are, unfortunately, facing a very different economic climate than we were just a few years ago. The way it is now, most people who lose their jobs cannot simply go across the street and get the same kind of work. Their old jobs are gone, and they need something different to make a decent living. These are people who have been dedicated to their companies and have played by the rules over the years. They deserve a program that creates skills, that quickly moves them into better jobs, that provides opportunities for the future, that keeps families and communities intact. They deserve something more than an apology that this is just the way the market works. They deserve the recognition that they are important, that they matter, and that we need them to make our country strong. There are people who are being hurt by trade in every State, and they need our support. My interest in this legislation was reinforced in 1997 in Roswell, New Mexico, when the Levi-Strauss plant closed and I saw first hand how trade adjustment assistance worked. Unfortunately, the importance of the program has only increased over the years. In Las Cruces, in Albuquerque, in Questa, in Alamogordo, in my own hometown of Silver City--time and again we have seen the negative impacts of trade in my State. Since 1994, we have had over 10,000 people in New Mexico certified for trade adjustment assistance. The number would be closer to 20,000 if we added secondary workers and contract workers. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle have similar stories from their States. Many are worse than my own. Department of Labor statistics show that since 1994 over a million Americans have been certified to receive trade adjustment assistance. And these are the people who are actually eligible for trade adjustment assistance and have applied. There are literally hundreds of thousands of others who deserve these benefits but are not eligible, or who are eligible but don't know it. They have suffered--they continue to suffer--because of the shortcomings of existing law, and we need to change that. To reach our goal of strengthening existing law, we talked to the people in my State and other States who had been laid off and had a story to tell. We talked to the community leaders who had to rebuild their towns after economic disaster had struck. We talked to the local organizations that had to work with their people to get their lives back on track. We listened to where the program worked, and where it hadn't worked, and where it needed to be improved. We asked the GAO to write several reports on the program, so we had an objective analysis to use as a guideline for reform. Then, and only then, did we begin to write new legislation. What we have here today is the outcome of several years of work. This trade adjustment assistance legislation was not created in a vacuum. It is not trade policy in the abstract. Every step along the way we connected real people to specific language in the legislation. Every provision has a story behind it. Every line in this legislation will help someone make his or her life better in communities in New Mexico and across the United States. Trade adjustment assistance is a program that is absolutely essential--that much is clear from the comments I have heard from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle--but it needs to be changed in a way that it works more efficiently and effectively. I am convinced the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program should be both solidified and expanded at this time, and we need a stronger and more consistent safety net for American workers and communities. Let me quickly explain how we have improved the program and why we feel it is necessary. Our first objective was to combine existing trade adjustment assistance programs and harmonize their various requirements so they would provide more effective and efficient results for individuals who need help. Currently there are substantial differences in coverage between the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, and we make sure those differences are eliminated in the bill. We have taken the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance program as a model and expanded available allowances from 52 to 78 weeks. This allows individuals to enroll in the specific kind of program they need to get a new job. We have also expanded coverage to secondary workers and workers impacted by shifts in production to any country. Currently these categories of workers are only covered under the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, not the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, and we feel this distinction is both artificial and arbitrary. In an international economy, there is simply no logical reason that coverage should be limited to individuals dislocated by trade with Mexico and Canada alone. Basic fairness and common sense dictates that anyone hurt by trade deserves the same treatment as that which is currently available under NAFTA trade adjustment assistance. Our second objective was to address the issue of health care in a way that makes a substantial difference in people's lives. Currently individuals certified for trade adjustment assistance only receive in the range of $250 a week. Then they must make a choice between paying for the range of expenses--health care, rents and mortgages, childcare, education, transportation, and so on--that they face in their daily lives. This is especially difficult when they are enrolled in the training they need to get a new job. Realistically, they must sacrifice something, and frequently the first thing they sacrifice is their health care. This can't continue. We have addressed this problem by providing a 73 percent advanceable, refundable tax credit towards COBRA coverage, the purchase of State-based insurance coverage, or, for those currently purchasing individual insurance, coverage through the individual market. Our third objective was to encourage greater cooperation between Federal, regional, and local agencies that handle individuals receiving trade adjustment assistance. Currently, individuals who are receiving trade adjustment assistance obtain counseling from Workforce Investment Act one-stop shops in their region, but typically receive no information other than that related to their allowances and training. No information is given concerning assistance and funds available through other Federal Departments and agencies. This means most people have no real idea of what options are available to them. To increase coordination between Federal and State agencies and increase the availability of information for trade adjustment assistance recipients, we have created an inter-agency working group on trade adjustment assistance and established stronger links between the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program and the Workforce Investment Act one-stop shops. This way the state-based delivery system remains intact but response times to trade adjustment assistance applications will be quicker and more effective. Our fourth objective was to recognize the direct correlation between job dislocation, job training, and economic development, especially in communities that have been hit hard by trade. Currently, trade adjustment assistance focuses specifically on individual retraining, but does not address the possibility that unemployment might be so high in a community that jobs are not available once an individual has completed a training program. To fix this problem, we created a community Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, based at the Department of Commerce, specifically designed to provide strategic planning assistance and economic development funding to communities that have suffered substantially from a trade-related economic downturn. Significantly, this is a bottom-up approach, as we emphasized the responsibility of local agencies and organizations to create a community-based recovery plan that fits the economic needs of their region. Our fifth objective was to help family farmers and ranchers. At present, trade adjustment assistance is available for employees of agricultural firms, but only when they become unemployed. This doesn't help family farmers and ranchers since they can't lose their job, there is no way for them to become eligible for trade adjustment assistance. We fix this problem by offering trade adjustment assistance allowances to family farmers and ranchers but allow them to opt out of the training program. This allows them to keep their land and get through the hard times that come as a result of international trade. The administration has focused their efforts on obtaining fast-track authority, stating that it is necessary for the United States to continue its leadership role in the international system. I do not disagree with the view that new, more comprehensive trade agreements will help U.S. corporations become more competitive in the international market. I am prepared to vote for an acceptable fast- track bill, as I think it is a valuable tool in opening the markets of other countries. But I will vote for fast-track only if a strong Trade Adjustment Assistance Program is part of the package. I think it is unacceptable to move forward on new trade agreements if we do not address the problems that American workers and communities face at this time. I look forward to working with my colleagues and the administration to get a meaningful trade package through the Senate and to the President for signature. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Thursday, May 9, 2002, at 2:30 p.m. in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 454, to provide permanent funding for the Bureau of Land Management Payment in Lieu of Taxes program and for other purposes; S. 1139, to direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey certain land to Lander County, Nevada, and the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to Eureka County, Nevada, for continued use as cemeteries. S. 1325, to ratify an agreement between the Aleut Corporation and the United States of America to exchange land rights received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on Adak Island, and for other purposes; S. 1497 and H.R. 2385, to convey certain property to the city of St. George, Utah, in order to provide for the protection and preservation of certain rare paleontological resources on that property, and for other purposes; S. 1711 and H.R. 1576, to designate the James Peak Wilderness and the James Peak Protection Area in the State of Colorado, and for other purposes; and S. 1907, to direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey certain land to the city of Haines, Oregon. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, 312 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510. For further information, please contact David Brooks (202) 224-9863 or John Watts of the committee staff at (202) 224-5488.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Tuesday, May 7, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of the hearing is to review the outlook for this year's wildland fire season as well as to assess the Federal land management agencies' state of readiness and preparedness for the wildland fire season. Because of the limited time available for the hearing, witnesses may testify by invitation only. Those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should e-mail it to shelly__brown@energy.senate.gov or fax it to 202-224-4340. For further information, please contact Kira Finkler of the Committee staff at (202) 224-8164. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make several technical adjustments to the Production Incentive Certificate, PIC, program. The PIC program helps assure that the watch and jewelry industries in the U.S. insular possessions, particularly the U.S. Virgin Islands, USVI, will continue to provide critical sources of employment in the insular possessions. This legislation would improve the operation of the PIC program for both watch and jewelry manufacturers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and, over the longer term, would protect the PIC program and related duty incentives from the effects of any future reduction or elimination of watch tariffs. The watch industry is the largest light manufacturing industry in the USVI and remains one of the most important direct and indirect sources of private sector employment in the Territory. The insular watch production industry is also highly import-sensitive and faces continued threats from multinational watch producers, who have continued to move their watch production to lower wage countries. Congress and successive Administrations have recognized the importance of the watch industry to the USVI--and the import sensitivity of watches--through a series of significant enactments and decisions. The General Note 3(a) program, which Congress has incorporated in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, grants duty-free treatment for qualifying insular possession watches and thereby provides a relative duty advantage vis-a-vis foreign watch producers. Through the PIC program, insular possession watch producers can obtain duty refunds based on creditable wages paid for watch production in the insular possessions. Additionally, in recognition of the relative advantage that duty-free treatment of watches provides to insular possession watch producers, Congress and successive Administrations have resisted efforts to eliminate watch duties on a worldwide basis. In 1999, Congress extended the General Note 3(a) program and PIC program benefits to jewelry produced in the insular possessions. In doing so, Congress sought to promote vital employment in the insular possessions by extending existing watch industry incentives to jewelry production--an industry which utilizes many of the same skills and facilities as watch production. In recent months, three mainland jewelry manufacturing companies have established operations in the USVI and are expected to file for PIC benefits in the near future. Recently, watch and jewelry producers in the Virgin Islands have consulted with the American Watch Association and U.S. watch firms that import substantial quantities of foreign made watches regarding proposals to preserve and protect benefits for insular possession watches and jewelry, while also mitigating the impact of any future reduction of duties on imported watches. These discussions have resulted in the parties' unified support for the legislation that I am introducing today. The various technical adjustments set forth in this legislation would enhance the ability of insular watch and jewelry producers to utilize the PIC program while, at the same time, retaining overall PIC program unit and dollar value limits. Additionally, the legislation would establish a standby mechanism to mitigate the impact of any possible future reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis through trade negotiations and congressional action. This mechanism-- which has broad support among the insular and domestic watch manufacturing and distribution sectors--would ensure that any future reduction in watch duties does not disturb the relative value of current duty incentives and PIC program benefits for the insular watch industry. Importantly, this standby mechanism would have no effect on current watch duties or PIC program limits. Under the PIC program, producers of watches and jewelry in the U.S. insular possessions are issued certificates by the Department of Commerce for specified percentages of the producer's verified creditable wages for production in the insular possessions. Based on these certificates, the producers are entitled to apply to the U.S. Customs Service for refunds on duties paid on watches. Certain technical provisions of the PIC program, however, impose unnecessary burdens on producers. These include unclear definitions, unduly complex PIC refund provisions and special issues relating to the extension of PIC benefits to jewelry. The legislation that I am introducing today includes technical adjustments to the PIC program to eliminate these burdens, while retaining overall PIC program limits on units and benefits. Currently, producers must assemble often voluminous import entry information and apply to U.S. Customs for wage-based refunds. If a producer has not paid sufficient import duties, the producer must sell the PIC certificate to another firm, which then applies for the duty refund. In either event, the PIC program assures that an insular producer is compensated for a specified percentage of its verified production wages, regardless of whether it has paid the corresponding amount of import duties. The bill would simplify this refund process by providing producers with the option of applying directly to the Treasury Department for the full amount of their verified PIC program certificates. For watches, the PIC program establishes a 750,000 unit limitation on the number of watches used to calculate an individual producer's PIC benefits. When the PIC program was extended to jewelry by Congress, this upper limit was also extended to each individual jewelry producer's qualifying jewelry production. While this limit may be appropriate for watches, which are technically sophisticated and relatively expensive, I am informed that it is likely to unduly limit jewelry production in the insular possessions, which relies on large quantities of relatively lower-priced units. My proposed legislation would address this issue by eliminating the 750,000 unit per producer limit for jewelry, while retaining the overall unit and dollar value limits for the PIC program as a whole. When Congress extended the PIC program to jewelry in 1999, it sought to encourage the phased establishment of new jewelry production in the insular possessions through a transition rule. Under this rule, jewelry items that are assembled, but not substantially transformed, in the insular possessions before August 9, 2001 would be eligible for PIC program and duty-free benefits. Although this new provision has helped attract new jewelry production to the USVI, I am informed that some potential producers are facing administrative, technical and business delays which may severely erode the benefits of the transition rule. The bill would address this issue by extending this transition rule for new insular jewelry producers for an additional 18 months. The bill would help to facilitate long term planning by existing insular producers and attract new producers to the insular possessions by extending the authorized term of the PIC program until 2015. The bill would also clarify current law by stating explicitly that verified wages include the amount of any fringe benefits. For many years, multinational companies that import substantial quantities of foreign-made watches into the United States have sought to reduce or eliminate U.S. watch duties, either through multiple petitions for duty-free treatment for watches from certain GSP-eligible countries or through worldwide elimination of watch duties in trade negotiations. Insular possession watch producers have repeatedly opposed these efforts on the ground that the elimination of duties on foreign watches would eliminate the relative benefit that insular possession producers receive through duty-free treatment under the General Note 3(a) program and, in turn, lead to the eventual demise of the insular watch industry. Successive Congresses and Administrations have agreed with these arguments and refused to erode the benefits that insular possession producers receive under General Note 3(a) and the PIC program. These continued battles over watch duties and the insular possession watch program have imposed significant resource burdens on Virgin Islands watch producers and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, diverting resources and energy that could better be spent in enhancing growth and employment in the insular watch and jewelry industries. Virgin Islands watch producers, the AWA and representatives of U.S. firms that import foreign-made watches are seeking to address this longstanding issue by reconciling existing insular possession watch benefits with any worldwide reduction or elimination of watch duties. The legislation that I am introducing contains two mechanisms to help mitigate the impact of any future reduction or elimination of watch duties, while also preserving existing watch benefits. The bill would put in place a standby mechanism that would preserve the benefits of duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a) in the event that Congress and a future Administration were to agree to eliminate or reduce duties on watches. This mechanism would preserve the relative tariff advantage that insular producers currently enjoy over foreign-made watches by incorporating a ``hold harmless'' provision in the PIC program. Under this standby mechanism, if watch duties were reduced or eliminated in the future, PIC payments to insular producers would also include an amount that reflects the value to the insular producers of the current General Note 3(a) benefit. This mechanism would facilitate the eventual reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis while helping to assure that any such duty reduction does not lead to the demise of the insular industry. Currently, payments under the PIC program are funded from watch duties. An alternative funding source would be required if watch duties were reduced or eliminated on a worldwide basis. The legislation that I am introducing provides that PIC benefits can be funded from jewelry duties or duties on other appropriate products. It is important to bear in mind that these two mechanisms would only be activated in the event that watch duties are, in fact, reduced or eliminated in the future--decisions that would require considerable deliberation and consultation by the President and Congress. By assuring the continuation of current benefits for insular producers, however, these mechanisms would greatly mitigate the impact of any eventual decision by Congress to reduce or eliminate watch duties. Congress has long recognized that the current watch industry incentives are critical to the health and survival of the watch industry in the U.S. Virgin Islands. By adopting this legislation, Congress can improve the operation of the PIC program for insular watch and jewelry producers and establish a mechanism to facilitate the eventual reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to share with my colleagues a letter sent by almost 300 State legislators--Republican and Democrat alike from 40 States--calling on Congress to add substantial new funding for child care. Just as parents have provided moving testimony to Congress about their struggles to find and afford child care, these state legislators join them in urging us to better fund child care to help families work and children succeed in school. Unfortunately, the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), is currently serving only one out of every seven eligible children. And any progress that States have made in recent years is now being threatened by the challenging economic situations that the States are confronting. I, along with Senators Kerry and Torricelli, introduced the Children First Act of 2002, S. 2070, to help children, families and the states meet their child care needs. People in New Mexico recognize that accessible, quality child care is a vital support for working families. Increased availability of child care will help to ensure the success of welfare reform, while also providing a critical support for parents earning low-incomes who are struggling to support their families and stay off the welfare rolls. State legislators see firsthand the integral role of child care in helping families to work. Quality child care also provides children with the early learning experience they need to achieve in school. States have been strong partners in the effort to improve public education across the nation. We must help them to provide children with the experiences they need to be ready to learn. These State legislators, including 14 legislators from New Mexico, today join the growing chorus of voices that we have heard from in support of increased child care funding. I ask unanimous consent that the text of their letter be printed in the Record. The letter follows. April 24, 2002 Re: Child Care Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator Bingaman: Quality child care is one of the most important investments we can make to help families to work and children to enter school ready to learn. The undersigned state legislators believe that substantial new investments for child care must be a top federal priority. Congress has a unique opportunity to address child care this year. As you undertake the reauthorization of the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG), we urge you to make sufficient new investments to ensure that 2 million more eligible children can receive assistance and that quality improvements can be made. This additional funding would approximately double the number of children currently getting assistance while improving the quality of care. Now, just 1 in 7 eligible children are receiving this important assistance. This additional investment serves two critical purposes. First, child care is an essential work support that will help ensure the success of welfare reform. Working parents need stable, affordable, and safe child care for their children in order to get a job and stay employed. Parents who work in low wage jobs struggle to find quality child care that they can afford. State legislators see firsthand the critical value of child care and its integral role in helping families to work. Second, quality care provides children with the early education experience they need to be ready for school and success in later life. States have been strong partners in the effort to improve the education of our children; we must to provide them with the strongest foundation possible to prepare them to be ready to learn and to succeed in school. Substantial new funding for the CCDBG would help states ensure that parents can work and children can have the quality early learning experiences that help prepare them to achieve in school. Now, as states struggle to overcome difficult economic challenges, we hope that we can count on your leadership in making additional investments in the CCDBG. This investment is one we cannot afford NOT to make. Sincerely, Rep. Steven C. Adams (VT), Sen. Richard Alarcon (CA), Rep. Elaine R. Alfano (VT), Rep. David Allaire (VT), Sen. Dede Alpert (CA), Assm. Elaine Alquist (CA), Sen. Ellen Anderson (MN), Sen. Jean Ankeney (VT), Assm. Dion Aroner (CA), Rep. Kathy B. Ashe (GA), Rep. Loranne Ausley (FL), Rep. Catherine Barrett (OH), Sen. Susan Bartlett (VT), Del. Viola O. Baskerville (VA), Rep. Gail C. Beam (NM), Rep. Sharon Beasley-Teague (GA), Sen. Mike Beebe (AR), Rep. Bernie Benn (NH), Del. Joanne C. Benson (MD), Sen. Roseann Bentley (MO), Rep. Connie Bernardy (MN), Rep. Cindy Beshear (UT), Rep. Anne Betancourt (FL), Rep. Gary Biggs (AR), Sen. Mark Blade (IN), Sen. Patricia Blevins (DE), Rep. Lynn Bohi (VT), Rep. David Bolduc (VT), Rep. Johnnie Bolin (AR), Rep. John L. Bowman (MO), Rep. Betty Boyd (CO), Assm. James F. Brennan (NY), Del. Robert Brink (VA), Rep. Shane Broadway (AR), Rep. Tyrone Brooks (GA), Sen. Lisa Brown (WA), Sen. Robert Brown (GA), Sen. Brian Burke (WI), Del. Emmett C. Burns (MD), Rep. James Buskey (AL), Sen. Gloria Butler (GA), Rep. Kenneth A. Carano (OH), Rep. Karen R. Carter (LA), Assm. Gil Cedillo (CA). Rep. Joseph Cervantes (NM), Rep. Duane Cheney (IN), Rep. Marvin Childers (AR), Assm. Joan K. Christensen (NY), Assm. Judy Chu (CA), Sen. J. Clement Cicilline (RI), Rep. Mary Cirelli (OH), Rep. Irma Clark (MI), Rep. Carol C. Cleven (MA), Sen. Eric Coleman (CT), Assm. Herb Conaway (NJ), Assm. Jack Conners (NJ), Rep. Edward G. Connolly (MA), Rep. Olin Cook (AR), Rep. Ken Cowling (AR), Rep. William Crawford (IN), Del. Flora D. Crittenden (VA), Rep. George C. Cross (VT), Rep. Judy B. Crowley (VT), Rep. LeRoy Dangeau (AR), Del. L. Karen Darner (VA), Rep. Dan K. Darrow (VT), Rep. Don P. Davis (VT), Rep. Lois DeBerry (TN), Rep. Michael DeBose (OH), Rep. David L. Deen (VT), Rep. Johannah L. Donovan (VT), Rep. Robert Dostis (VT), Rep. Patricia R. Doyle (VT), Rep. Carina Driscoll (VT), Rep. Dawnna Dukes (TX), Assm. John Dutra (CA), Rep. Dean Elliott (AR), Rep. Susan Emerson (NH), Rep. Alice Emmons (VT), Sen. Martha Escutia (CA), Assm. Arthur O. Eve (NY), Sen. Dede Feldman (NM), Sen. Joseph A. Fidel (NM), Sen. Vivian Davis Figures (AL), Sen. Eric D. Fingerhut (OH), Rep. Michael Fisher (VT), Rep. Mary E. Flowers (IL), Rep. John E. Follett (VT). Rep. Betty Folliard (MN), Rep. Johnny Ford (AR), Sen. Vincent D. Fort (GA), Rep. Lois Frankel (FL), Sen. Rosa Franklin (WA), Rep. George French (AR), Rep. John Fritchey (IL), Rep. Anne Gannon (FL), Sen. Mary Jane Garcia (NM), Rep. Dean George (VT), Rep. Avis L. Gervias (VT), Rep. Stanley J. Gerzofsky (ME), Assm. Deborah J. Glick (NY), Rep. Cedric Bradford Glover (LA), Rep. Pat Godchaux (MI), Assm. Jackie Goldberg (CA), Sen. Avel Louise Gordly (OR), Rep. Maxine Grad (VT), Assm. Aurelia Greene (NY), Rep. Jane Greimann (IA), Rep. Peter Groff (CO), Sen. Mary Ann Handley (CT), Sen. Alice V. Harden (MS), Sen. Toni Nathaniel Harp (CT), Sen. Ruth Hassell-Thompson (NY), Rep. David Charles Hausam (AR), Assm. Sally Havice (CA), Rep. Joe Hayes (AK), Sen. Robert L. Hedlund (MA), Sen. Robert Hernandez (CO), Rep. Steve Hingtgen (VT), Sen. Melvin ``Kip'' Holden (LA), Sen. Maxine Horner (OK), Rep. Don House (AR), Del. James W. Hubbard (MD), Del. Susan Hubbard (WV), Rep. Cola H. Hudson (VT), Sen. Vincent Hughes (PA), Rep. Margaret Hummel (VT), Rep. Kay Iles (LA), Sen. Paulette Irons (LA), Rep. Lei Ahu Isa (HI), Rep. Lydia P. Jackson (LA), Rep. Gilda Jacobs (MI), Assm. Rhoda Jacobs (NY), Rep. Pam Jochum (IA). Assm. Susan V. John (NY), Sen. Emil Jones, Jr. (IL), Sen. Paula F. Julander (UT), Rep. Bertha C. Kawakami (HI), Rep. Helene M. Keeley (DE), Assm. Christine Kehoe (CA), Sen. Delores G. Kelley (MD), Del. Ruth M. Kirk (MD), Rep. Warren F. Kitzmiller (VT), Assm. David Koon (NY), Assm. Paul Koretz (CA), Rep. Luanne Koskinen (MN), Sen. Liz Krueger (NY), Rep. John LaBarge (VT), Assm. Ivan Lafayette (NY), Sen. Charles Langford (AL), Rep. Leigh B. Larocque (VT), Rep. Mark Larson (VT), Rep. Kathy Lavoie (VT), Sen. Alfred Lawson Jr. (FL), Sen. Connie Lawson (IN), Rep. Rob Leighton (MN), Sen. Burton Leland (MI), Rep. Bertha F. K. Leong (HI), Rep. Cindy Lerner (FL), Rep. John M. Lewellen (AR), Sen. Kimberly A. Lightford (IL), Rep. David Litvack (UT), Assm. Carol Liu (CA), Sen. Linda M. Lopez (NM), Rep. James Roger Madalena (NM), Rep. Liz Malia (MA), Assm. Virginia Strom Martin (CA), Rep. Bob Mathis (AR), Assm. Naomi C. Matusow (NY), Sen. Nathaniel J. McFadden (MD), Rep. Jack McGuire (IL), Rep. Mary Jo McGuire (MN), Rep. Terry McMellon (AR), Assm. Carole Migden (AR), Rep. Rick Miera (NM), Rep. Dale Miller (OH), Rep. Mark Miller (WI), Assm. Joan L. Millman (NY), Sen. Richard Mitchell (FL), Rep. Larry Molloy (VT). Sen. Angela Monson (OK), Rep. Arthur A. Morrell (LA), Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (VT), Rep. Kevin J. Mullin (VT), Rep. Phyllis Mundy (PA), Rep. Pat Murphy (IA), Rep. Edwin R. Murray (LA), Rep. Elliott Naishtat (TX), Del. Shirley Nathan- Pulliam (MD), Rep. Wayne Nichols (AR), Rep. Alice W. Nitka (VT), Assm. Catherine Nolan (NY), Rep. Michael J. Obuchowski (VT), Rep. Pat O'Donnell (VT), Sen. Suzi Oppenheimer (NY), Rep. Donny Osman (VT), Rep. Robert J. Otterman (OH), Assm. Robert Pacheco (CA), Rep. Allen C. Palmer (VT), Rep. Laura C. Pantelakos (NH), Sen. Mary Kay Papen (NM), Sen. Sandy Pappas (MN), Rep. Carolyn Partridge (VT), Rep. Janet Petersen (IA), Rep. Danice Picaux (NM), Rep. Wilfred Pierre (LA), Sen. Edith P. Prague (CT), Rep. Joseph Preston, Jr. (PA), Assm. Mary Previte (NJ), Rep. Ann Pugh (VT), Sen. Bill Purcell (NC), Rep. Randy Rankin (AR), Rep. Michael S. Reese (VT), Rep. Nan H. Rich (FL), Rep. Barbara Hull Richardson (NH), Rep. Curtis Richardson (FL), Sen. John Riggs (AR), Sen. Elizabeth Roberts (RI), Rep. Debbie A. Rodella (NM), Rep. Jim Roebuck (PA), Rep. Tommy Roebuck (AR), Rep. Sandra Reyenga Rodgers (AR), Rep. Sara Romeo (FL), Rep. Don Ross (OK), Sen. Larry Rowe (WV), Rep. Ray Ruiz (NM). Rep. Byron Rushing (MA), Rep. Robert Rusten (VT), Sen. John Sampson (NY), Assm. Steven Sanders (NY), Sen. Nellie R. Santiago (NY), Rep. Hank Schaefer (VT), Rep. Mark Schauer (MI), Sen. J. Thomas Schedler (LA), Sen. Eric T. Schneiderman (NY), Sen. Allyson Y. Schwartz (PA), Rep. Nancy Scovner (NH), Sen. Jack Scott (CA), Rep. Craig S. Scribner, Sr. (VT), Rep. Gloria Seldin (NH), Sen. William Shaw (IL), Rep. O.L. Shelton (MO), Sen. Mike Shoemaker (OH), Rep. Martha Shoffner (AR), Rep. Elizabeth C. Shultis (NH), Ren. Betty Sims (MO), Rep. Ricca Slone (IL), Rep. Harvey T. Smith (VT), Rep. Marjorie K. Smith (NH). Assm. Richard A. Smith (NY), Rep. Shirley A. Smith (OH), Sen. Terry Smith (AR), Rep. Hilda Weyl Sokol (NH), Rep. Cynthia Soto (IL), Rep. Pamela A. Stanley (GA), Sen. Toby Ann Stavisky (NY), Assm. Darrell Steinberg (CA), Rep. Matthew Stevens (VT), Rep. Mimi Stewart (NM), Rep. Bill Stovall (AR), Rep. Fred Strahorn (OH), Rep. Benjamin Sulan (MA), Rep. Benjamin Swan (MA), Rep. Donna Sweaney (VT), Rep. Gaye Symngton (VT), Sen. Penfield W. Tate III (CO), Rep. Larry Teague (AR), Rep. Samuel ``Buzz'' Thomas (MI), Assm. Helen Thomson (CA). Sen. Patricia S. Ticer (VA), Sen. Tom Torlakson (CA), Rep. John Patrick Tracy (VT), Sen. Sue Tucker (MA), Del. Frank S. Turner (MD), Del. Marina Van Landingham (VA), Rep. Barb Vander Veen (MI), Sen. John Vasconcellos (CA), Rep. Richard Vigil (NM), Rep. Cathy Voyer (VT), Sen. Jack Wagner (PA), Rep. Vicki Walker (OR), Rep. Don Webster (VT), Assm. Loretta Weinberg (NJ), Rep. Yvonne Welch (LA), Sen. Royce West (TX), Rep. Susan Wheeler (VT), Sen. Mary Margaret Whipple (VA), Sen. Celestino A. White, Sr. (VI), Rep. Doug Wiles (FL), Rep. Roberta Willis (CT), Rep. Frederica Wilson (FL), Rep. Philip Winters (VT), Rep. Larry W. Womble (NC), Rep. Jane Wood (NH), Rep. Jim Wood (AR), Rep. Kurt Wright (VT), Rep. Karen Yarbrough (IL), Rep. David Zuckerman (VT).

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to make several technical adjustments to the Production Incentive Certificate, PIC, program. The PIC program helps assure that the watch and jewelry industries in the U.S. insular possessions, particularly the U.S. Virgin Islands, USVI, will continue to provide critical sources of employment in the insular possessions. This legislation would improve the operation of the PIC program for both watch and jewelry manufacturers in the U.S. Virgin Islands and, over the longer term, would protect the PIC program and related duty incentives from the effects of any future reduction or elimination of watch tariffs. The watch industry is the largest light manufacturing industry in the USVI and remains one of the most important direct and indirect sources of private sector employment in the Territory. The insular watch production industry is also highly import-sensitive and faces continued threats from multinational watch producers, who have continued to move their watch production to lower wage countries. Congress and successive Administrations have recognized the importance of the watch industry to the USVI--and the import sensitivity of watches--through a series of significant enactments and decisions. The General Note 3(a) program, which Congress has incorporated in the Harmonized Tariff Schedule, grants duty-free treatment for qualifying insular possession watches and thereby provides a relative duty advantage vis-a-vis foreign watch producers. Through the PIC program, insular possession watch producers can obtain duty refunds based on creditable wages paid for watch production in the insular possessions. Additionally, in recognition of the relative advantage that duty-free treatment of watches provides to insular possession watch producers, Congress and successive Administrations have resisted efforts to eliminate watch duties on a worldwide basis. In 1999, Congress extended the General Note 3(a) program and PIC program benefits to jewelry produced in the insular possessions. In doing so, Congress sought to promote vital employment in the insular possessions by extending existing watch industry incentives to jewelry production--an industry which utilizes many of the same skills and facilities as watch production. In recent months, three mainland jewelry manufacturing companies have established operations in the USVI and are expected to file for PIC benefits in the near future. Recently, watch and jewelry producers in the Virgin Islands have consulted with the American Watch Association and U.S. watch firms that import substantial quantities of foreign made watches regarding proposals to preserve and protect benefits for insular possession watches and jewelry, while also mitigating the impact of any future reduction of duties on imported watches. These discussions have resulted in the parties' unified support for the legislation that I am introducing today. The various technical adjustments set forth in this legislation would enhance the ability of insular watch and jewelry producers to utilize the PIC program while, at the same time, retaining overall PIC program unit and dollar value limits. Additionally, the legislation would establish a standby mechanism to mitigate the impact of any possible future reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis through trade negotiations and congressional action. This mechanism-- which has broad support among the insular and domestic watch manufacturing and distribution sectors--would ensure that any future reduction in watch duties does not disturb the relative value of current duty incentives and PIC program benefits for the insular watch industry. Importantly, this standby mechanism would have no effect on current watch duties or PIC program limits. Under the PIC program, producers of watches and jewelry in the U.S. insular possessions are issued certificates by the Department of Commerce for specified percentages of the producer's verified creditable wages for production in the insular possessions. Based on these certificates, the producers are entitled to apply to the U.S. Customs Service for refunds on duties paid on watches. Certain technical provisions of the PIC program, however, impose unnecessary burdens on producers. These include unclear definitions, unduly complex PIC refund provisions and special issues relating to the extension of PIC benefits to jewelry. The legislation that I am introducing today includes technical adjustments to the PIC program to eliminate these burdens, while retaining overall PIC program limits on units and benefits. Currently, producers must assemble often voluminous import entry information and apply to U.S. Customs for wage-based refunds. If a producer has not paid sufficient import duties, the producer must sell the PIC certificate to another firm, which then applies for the duty refund. In either event, the PIC program assures that an insular producer is compensated for a specified percentage of its verified production wages, regardless of whether it has paid the corresponding amount of import duties. The bill would simplify this refund process by providing producers with the option of applying directly to the Treasury Department for the full amount of their verified PIC program certificates. For watches, the PIC program establishes a 750,000 unit limitation on the number of watches used to calculate an individual producer's PIC benefits. When the PIC program was extended to jewelry by Congress, this upper limit was also extended to each individual jewelry producer's qualifying jewelry production. While this limit may be appropriate for watches, which are technically sophisticated and relatively expensive, I am informed that it is likely to unduly limit jewelry production in the insular possessions, which relies on large quantities of relatively lower-priced units. My proposed legislation would address this issue by eliminating the 750,000 unit per producer limit for jewelry, while retaining the overall unit and dollar value limits for the PIC program as a whole. When Congress extended the PIC program to jewelry in 1999, it sought to encourage the phased establishment of new jewelry production in the insular possessions through a transition rule. Under this rule, jewelry items that are assembled, but not substantially transformed, in the insular possessions before August 9, 2001 would be eligible for PIC program and duty-free benefits. Although this new provision has helped attract new jewelry production to the USVI, I am informed that some potential producers are facing administrative, technical and business delays which may severely erode the benefits of the transition rule. The bill would address this issue by extending this transition rule for new insular jewelry producers for an additional 18 months. The bill would help to facilitate long term planning by existing insular producers and attract new producers to the insular possessions by extending the authorized term of the PIC program until 2015. The bill would also clarify current law by stating explicitly that verified wages include the amount of any fringe benefits. For many years, multinational companies that import substantial quantities of foreign-made watches into the United States have sought to reduce or eliminate U.S. watch duties, either through multiple petitions for duty-free treatment for watches from certain GSP-eligible countries or through worldwide elimination of watch duties in trade negotiations. Insular possession watch producers have repeatedly opposed these efforts on the ground that the elimination of duties on foreign watches would eliminate the relative benefit that insular possession producers receive through duty-free treatment under the General Note 3(a) program and, in turn, lead to the eventual demise of the insular watch industry. Successive Congresses and Administrations have agreed with these arguments and refused to erode the benefits that insular possession producers receive under General Note 3(a) and the PIC program. These continued battles over watch duties and the insular possession watch program have imposed significant resource burdens on Virgin Islands watch producers and the Government of the U.S. Virgin Islands, diverting resources and energy that could better be spent in enhancing growth and employment in the insular watch and jewelry industries. Virgin Islands watch producers, the AWA and representatives of U.S. firms that import foreign-made watches are seeking to address this longstanding issue by reconciling existing insular possession watch benefits with any worldwide reduction or elimination of watch duties. The legislation that I am introducing contains two mechanisms to help mitigate the impact of any future reduction or elimination of watch duties, while also preserving existing watch benefits. The bill would put in place a standby mechanism that would preserve the benefits of duty-free treatment under General Note 3(a) in the event that Congress and a future Administration were to agree to eliminate or reduce duties on watches. This mechanism would preserve the relative tariff advantage that insular producers currently enjoy over foreign-made watches by incorporating a ``hold harmless'' provision in the PIC program. Under this standby mechanism, if watch duties were reduced or eliminated in the future, PIC payments to insular producers would also include an amount that reflects the value to the insular producers of the current General Note 3(a) benefit. This mechanism would facilitate the eventual reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis while helping to assure that any such duty reduction does not lead to the demise of the insular industry. Currently, payments under the PIC program are funded from watch duties. An alternative funding source would be required if watch duties were reduced or eliminated on a worldwide basis. The legislation that I am introducing provides that PIC benefits can be funded from jewelry duties or duties on other appropriate products. It is important to bear in mind that these two mechanisms would only be activated in the event that watch duties are, in fact, reduced or eliminated in the future--decisions that would require considerable deliberation and consultation by the President and Congress. By assuring the continuation of current benefits for insular producers, however, these mechanisms would greatly mitigate the impact of any eventual decision by Congress to reduce or eliminate watch duties. Congress has long recognized that the current watch industry incentives are critical to the health and survival of the watch industry in the U.S. Virgin Islands. By adopting this legislation, Congress can improve the operation of the PIC program for insular watch and jewelry producers and establish a mechanism to facilitate the eventual reduction or elimination of watch duties on a worldwide basis. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We would be glad to consider any germane amendment the Senator would like to call up.

Mr. BINGAMAN. If the Senator has an amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. We thought it was only fair.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I am sure the Senator from Arizona is very familiar with biosolids.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Produced from municipal biosolids and recycled sludge.

Mr. BINGAMAN. This is an amendment by Senator Kohl. I can get the description in a minute on the precise provisions. There is credit for electricity produced from municipal biosolids and recycled sludge.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the following amendments be agreed to en bloc and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. The amendments are as follows: Nos. 3343, 3344, 3362, 3363, 3346, as Modified, 3335, as Modified, 3364, 3360, and 3355, as modified.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I also ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Jersey, Mr. Torricelli, be listed as a cosponsor of the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senator from New Jersey be given a minute to explain his perspective.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to reconsider the vote and move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3370

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I made a motion to table the amendment, and the Senator from Utah will use the minute to argue for that position.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 3333

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to table the other Kyl amendment, numbered 3333, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.