Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I'm pleased today to join my colleague Senator Domenici in sponsoring the Albuquerque Indian School Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to take lands no longer being used by the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Albuquerque and hold them in trust for the benefit of the 19 pueblos. The bill disallows gaming on the property. In addition to being a good thing for the pueblos, this transfer promises to be beneficial to the surrounding community, as several deteriorating structures will be renewed and new jobs brought in. Since the bill would not alter the standard public process for taking the lands into trust, I hope this will result in a consensus among all concerned on the best uses of the property. I am pleased we are taking the first step today on a process that should be beneficial to the pueblos, the Federal Government, and local residents.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Save Our Safety--SOS--Net Act of 2006. This legislation will help repair the fraying safety net that provides critical health care to patients throughout the United States. This legislation is important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's emergency departments and rural hospitals that provide services to millions of American's on a daily basis. It is these facilities that are there for us in the most remote regions of the country, it is these facilities that are there for us at all times of day and night, and it is these facilities that will be there for us in time of disaster. We need to take the steps to ensure the survival of this safety net. This week, The Institute of Medicine's--IOM--Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System released a series of reports detailing the problems facing emergency care in the U.S. These reports make it clear that emergency departments--EDs--struggle daily with overcrowding, ambulance diversion, the boarding of admitted patients in the ED, limited staffing, and poor reimbursement. They face all of these challenges while continuing to provide access to safe, high-quality care without regard to ability of the patient to pay for their care. Similarly, rural hospitals face shortages of staff and specialists, poor reimbursement, and the isolation that sometimes complicates medical care. This system is stressed and is poorly prepared to accept the additional burdens that could occur in a disaster or terrorist attack. These safety net systems and the people who work within them deserve our support and yet the trends are not promising. The demand for emergency departments has been growing fast. In the recent study conducted by the Institute of Medicine, emergency department visits grew by 26 percent between 1993 and 2003, but due to lack of funding 425 emergency departments have closed resulting in almost 200,000 less hospital beds in the U.S. In my own State of New Mexico, we have seen a decrease from 4.2 to 3.6 beds per 1,000 population from 1990 to 2002. Ambulances are frequently diverted from overcrowded emergency departments an average of once every minute. With the growth of the number of elderly patients and the growth of uninsured patients seeking care in the ED, these statistics will only worsen if nothing is done. There are approximately 535 sole community hospitals in 46 States. Congress has long recognized the special role of these facilities, because they serve as safety net providers offering hospital services to isolated communities and regions. These hospitals struggle with poor reimbursement and difficulty finding staff. Despite the service they provide, these facilities face the possibility of closing on a yearly basis. To improve the ability of our safety net facilities to function, this bill proposes several steps. By improving Medicare payments for emergency department services, this bill would provide SOS payments to physicians and hospitals for the care that is provided in the emergency department. It would improve reimbursement to emergency departments by an additional 10 percent for outpatient services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation will also permanently extend outpatient hold harmless payment protections to some of the Nation's most vulnerable institutions, small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals that serve as safety net providers in rural communities. Finally, to further strengthen the rural hospital safety net, this bill will improve disproportionate share hospital--DSH--payments to these facilities. Congress has historically provided additional payments to health care providers who treat large numbers of indigent patients. Disproportionate share hospital payments are made in addition to the base payments hospitals receive from the Medicare and Medicaid Programs for inpatient services. This bill will eliminate the cap that is present on DSH add-on payments to rural hospitals. This will remove some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals. Mr. President, 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 commend the efforts and extraordinary dedication of the volunteer firefighters and emergency rescue teams throughout New Mexico who have been working tirelessly to assist in fighting fires and meeting the needs of citizens throughout the State as they cope with the worst fire season in decades. It has already been an incredibly difficult fire season for the people of the Southwest. New Mexico is suffering a drought of historic proportions. The State spent the winter preparing for a summer fire season they hoped wouldn't happen. Unfortunately, the worst fears of the State are quickly becoming a reality. By the end of June, more than 100,000 acres of land will have burned and the State will have already faced more than 20 named fires and countless unnamed fires of varying size and intensity. Hundreds of people have been evacuated, property lost, and communities changed forever. Bear Paw, Rivera Mesa, Energen, Martinez, Skates, Bear, Eicks, Wilson, and Malpais, are the names of just a few of the large fires that the State has already faced this year. Throughout this time I have been deeply impressed by the work of Federal, State, Tribal, and local fire fighters. But the work of these professionals would be impossible without the commitment of the volunteer firefighters and rescue teams who have unfailingly answered the call to service. These volunteers exemplify the best spirit of New Mexico. They have courageously worked the fire lines, offered their support and a shoulder to cry on, provided a bed and warm meal to evacuees, and helped to corral and move pets and livestock out of harm's way. They do all this while some of their own families and homes face the same fire danger. While I am not surprised at the selflessness of my fellow New Mexicans, I am forever grateful to these volunteers. The work of these volunteer firefighters and rescue teams has been essential in meeting the challenges of a very active fire season. Throughout New Mexico volunteer firefighters and rescue teams have responded at all times of the day and night. Some have worked for many days in a row to ensure that all the needs of their community were met and the necessary resources were in place. Their bravery and selflessness has been an example to all New Mexicans, and I strongly commend them for their work. I know that I am joined today by every New Mexican in saying thank you to our volunteer firefighters and rescue teams and in the hope for their continued safety in the face of the fire dangers they face.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in New Mexico. The bill, which is cosponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils and trackways. The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the first dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied. Las Cruces resident and paleontologist Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. The trackways include footprints of numerous amphibians, reptiles, and insects, including previously unknown species. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones. Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in sponsoring legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its significance. In 1994, the Bureau of Land Management, along with scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution, completed their study and documented the importance of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there, the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites.'' The study also described the site as containing ``the most scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the world. However, despite the recognition of the significance of the site, it has remained essentially unprotected, and many of the trackways and fossils have been lost or damaged. This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources. In addition to permanently protecting the fossils, the bill would authorize the continuation of existing uses in the area, such as motorized recreation, as long as the trackway resources aren't harmed. The bill would also help ensure that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient Earth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation entitled the Save Our Safety--SOS--Net Act of 2006. This legislation will help repair the fraying safety net that provides critical health care to patients throughout the United States. This legislation is important to the continued survival of many of our Nation's emergency departments and rural hospitals that provide services to millions of American's on a daily basis. It is these facilities that are there for us in the most remote regions of the country, it is these facilities that are there for us at all times of day and night, and it is these facilities that will be there for us in time of disaster. We need to take the steps to ensure the survival of this safety net. This week, The Institute of Medicine's--IOM--Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the United States Health System released a series of reports detailing the problems facing emergency care in the U.S. These reports make it clear that emergency departments--EDs--struggle daily with overcrowding, ambulance diversion, the boarding of admitted patients in the ED, limited staffing, and poor reimbursement. They face all of these challenges while continuing to provide access to safe, high-quality care without regard to ability of the patient to pay for their care. Similarly, rural hospitals face shortages of staff and specialists, poor reimbursement, and the isolation that sometimes complicates medical care. This system is stressed and is poorly prepared to accept the additional burdens that could occur in a disaster or terrorist attack. These safety net systems and the people who work within them deserve our support and yet the trends are not promising. The demand for emergency departments has been growing fast. In the recent study conducted by the Institute of Medicine, emergency department visits grew by 26 percent between 1993 and 2003, but due to lack of funding 425 emergency departments have closed resulting in almost 200,000 less hospital beds in the U.S. In my own State of New Mexico, we have seen a decrease from 4.2 to 3.6 beds per 1,000 population from 1990 to 2002. Ambulances are frequently diverted from overcrowded emergency departments an average of once every minute. With the growth of the number of elderly patients and the growth of uninsured patients seeking care in the ED, these statistics will only worsen if nothing is done. There are approximately 535 sole community hospitals in 46 States. Congress has long recognized the special role of these facilities, because they serve as safety net providers offering hospital services to isolated communities and regions. These hospitals struggle with poor reimbursement and difficulty finding staff. Despite the service they provide, these facilities face the possibility of closing on a yearly basis. To improve the ability of our safety net facilities to function, this bill proposes several steps. By improving Medicare payments for emergency department services, this bill would provide SOS payments to physicians and hospitals for the care that is provided in the emergency department. It would improve reimbursement to emergency departments by an additional 10 percent for outpatient services delivered to Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation will also permanently extend outpatient hold harmless payment protections to some of the Nation's most vulnerable institutions, small rural hospitals and sole community hospitals that serve as safety net providers in rural communities. Finally, to further strengthen the rural hospital safety net, this bill will improve disproportionate share hospital--DSH--payments to these facilities. Congress has historically provided additional payments to health care providers who treat large numbers of indigent patients. Disproportionate share hospital payments are made in addition to the base payments hospitals receive from the Medicare and Medicaid Programs for inpatient services. This bill will eliminate the cap that is present on DSH add-on payments to rural hospitals. This will remove some of the inequities between urban and rural hospitals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today to protect a site of worldwide scientific significance in the Robledo Mountains in New Mexico. The bill, which is cosponsored by my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, would create a national monument to preserve and allow for the continuing scientific investigation of a remarkable ``megatracksite'' of 280,000,000 year-old fossils and trackways. The vast tidal mudflats that made up much of modern New Mexico 60 million years before the first dinosaurs preserved the marks of some of the earliest life on our planet to make its way out of the ocean. The fossil record of this time is scattered throughout New Mexico but, until this discovery, there were few places where the range of life and their interactions with each other could be studied. Las Cruces resident and paleontologist Jerry MacDonald first brought the find to light in 1988 when he revealed that there was far more to be found in the Robledos than the occasional fossil that local residents had been seeing for years. The trackways he hauled out on his back, some over 20 feet long, showed that there was a great deal of useful information buried in the rock there. The trackways include footprints of numerous amphibians, reptiles, and insects, including previously unknown species. These trackways help complete the puzzle of how these ancient creatures lived in a way that we cannot understand from only studying their fossilized bones. Senator Domenici and Representative Skeen joined me in sponsoring legislation, passed in 1990, to protect the area and study its significance. In 1994, the Bureau of Land Management, along with scientists from the New Mexico Museum of Natural History & Science, the University of Colorado, and the Smithsonian Institution, completed their study and documented the importance of the find. Particularly owing to the quality of the specimens and the wide range of animals that had left their imprint there, the study found that the site was of immense scientific value. The study concluded, in part, ``[t]he diversity, abundance and quality of the tracks in the Robledo Mountains is far greater than at any other known tracksite or aggregation of tracksites.'' The study also described the site as containing ``the most scientifically significant Early Permian tracksites'' in the world. However, despite the recognition of the significance of the site, it has remained essentially unprotected, and many of the trackways and fossils have been lost or damaged. This bill would take the next logical step to follow up from these efforts and set in place permanent protections and allow for scientific investigation of these remarkable resources. In addition to permanently protecting the fossils, the bill would authorize the continuation of existing uses in the area, such as motorized recreation, as long as the trackway resources aren't harmed. The bill would also help ensure that local residents get the opportunity to see these unique specimens and participate in their curation. This should provide a unique scientific and educational opportunity to Las Cruces and the surrounding community. I look forward to working with my colleagues to protect these important resources and allow for their continuing contribution to our understanding of life on the ancient Earth. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today marks the anniversary of the passage of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution on climate change. One year ago the Senate convened to debate the appropriate policy direction for the United States on this issue. The Senate debate on climate change included discussions on various proposals from Senators Hagel and Pryor, as well as Senators McCain and Lieberman and others. Although I had worked very closely with Senator Domenici on a specific policy proposal of our own, we were not able in the time allotted to find agreement on various aspects of that proposal. We ultimately decided that we should put the question to the Senate of whether or not our efforts should continue over the remainder of the 109th Congress. I am pleased to say that passage of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution gave us the foundation to continue our collaboration. Over the course of the last year, I have worked with Chairman Domenici and others to explore the basic workings of a mandatory market-based system to limit greenhouse gases. We have held hearings in the Energy Committee, participated in workshops and conferences, and engaged interested stakeholders through a White Paper process that culminated in an important day-long conference in April. Other Members of this body have been actively engaged in the continuing conversation, such as Senators Carper, Feinstein, Lugar, and Biden just to name a few, but it is important for us to recognize how much faster this issue is progressing outside of Washington, DC. The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme is in its second year of existence. There has been some debate about how the program is progressing, but there is no debate about the fact that they are moving forward and addressing global warming in a ground-breaking manner. Here in the United States, my colleagues from California and the Northeastern States are intimately aware of State initiatives to address global warming. My own State of New Mexico has been a leader in reducing emissions as well. Most importantly, I think we need to recognize how much we have learned in the past year about the science of climate change. Last year, the National Academies of Science from 11 countries, including the United States, declared that ``scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action.'' According to NASA scientists, 2005 was the warmest year since the late 1800s. 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2004 followed as the next four warmest years. With regard to the impacts of global warming, a recent study shows that we are on track to initiate the melting of the Greenland ice sheet, which will contribute to continued sea-level rise and will also have major impacts on oceanic circulation from freshwater influx. Even small amounts of sea-level rise will have substantial impacts on coastal erosion, increased susceptibility to storm surges and groundwater contamination by salt intrusion. The effect on many of the world's coastal areas and population centers could be devastating. We are also in the early stages of hurricane season. I have not yet seen any studies that would indicate global warming will create more hurricanes, but I have seen two recent studies that conclude that the warming we are seeing in the world's oceans is caused by human-induced climate change. In addition, there are more studies that have recently concluded that the intensity of individual hurricanes has increased, which in part is attributed to the warming of the oceans. In conclusion, I believe that this is evidence that we need to act now. Since the sense-of-the-Senate resolution passed last year, the U.S. has emitted roughly 6 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide. EIA forecasts continued steady emissions growth at a rate that, if not slowed and ultimately stopped and reversed, will make it increasingly difficult to avoid dangerous climate impacts. I want to thank Senators Domenici and Specter, along with all of the cosponsors of the sense-of-the-Senate Resolution and everyone who supported it. We have learned a great deal over the course of the last year, and I would like to continue the progress. I would like to urge all of my colleagues who are interested in this issue to work with us to find a solution we can implement sooner, rather than later. I would like the references to some of the studies I have mentioned printed in the Record so that others can review them as well.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about an amendment that I intended to offer to the Defense Authorization bill to address the situation in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The amendment would have required that the United States charge, repatriate, or release individuals held at Guantanamo within 180 days of the enactment of the Defense Authorization bill. If for some reason the Government failed to comply within the timeframe provided under the amendment, the Department of Defense would have to provide a report regarding why they have not complied. The amendment would not have closed Guantanamo, and nothing in the amendment would have required the Government to release individuals who are a threat to our national security. I think this is a reasonable approach. These are all options that the President has said that he is moving forward on. I have decided, however, not to offer my amendment at this time for a number of reasons. First, given the looming cloture vote, it is clear we will not have time to have a full and open debate on this issue. I believed that this is an important issue that deserved more time. I have also been advised by other Senators that they need additional time to study the proposal. I strongly believe that the indefinite imprisonment of persons without charges is inconsistent with the traditions and values of the United States, and that it will continue to cause difficulty in our relations with other nations, including the allies that we rely on in confronting the threat of terrorism. As President Bush said on June 14, 2006: No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they're trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. I think the President is right. According to an article in today's Miami Herald, Retired Army GEN Barry McCaffery, who recently visited Guantanamo, said: ``We are in a political and legal mess that is beyond belief'' and political leaders need to fix the ``legal schizophrenia'' that exists by continuing to hold individuals at Guantanamo. I completely agree, and it is my hope that the Senate will afford time to debate this issue in the near future.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I wish to speak briefly in response to the comments of my colleague and friend from South Carolina, Senator Graham, about the amendment which I intend to offer at an appropriate time on the Defense authorization bill. I say, in all respect to the Senator from South Carolina, he has totally misread the amendment. He has totally mischaracterized it. This amendment does not, as he said, require the Government to either release everyone at Guantanamo or charge those individuals. It is very clear in the amendment. It starts out by saying, ``Except as provided in subsection (b),'' and then it goes on to say: Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of the law, an alien who is detained by the Secretary of Defense shall, consistent with applicable law, be charged or repatriated or released. But then obviously the exception is what we start out with there. It says the exception under paragraph (b) is that with respect to an alien described in the first section, subsection (a), who is not charged or repatriated or released within this 180 days, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a detailed report as to each such alien that includes, and then it specifies the information that needs to be included. Essentially, it says the Department of Defense shall go ahead and charge these individuals with criminal activity or it shall repatriate them to their home country, an appropriate country, or it shall release them, or it shall give us a report and explain what its plans are with regard to these individuals and why it is not taking one of the previous actions. That is not the characterization or the description that the Senator from South Carolina just went through. This amendment does not require that any enemy combatant be released. It is clear in its language that it does not require that. It does not require the release of people ``en masse,'' which was the language the Senator from South Carolina used. It does not require us to release people who are then believed to have the motivation of getting, as the Senator from South Carolina said, back into the fight. This does not in any way restrict what the Department of Defense does. It just says the Department of Defense has various options, but we are going to begin to understand what action the Department of Defense is taking with these individuals. It can charge them with a crime, it can repatriate them to their home country, it can release them, or it can tell us, the Congress, the appropriate committees of the Congress, what it intends to do and what action and what factors cause it to not want to take one of those previous actions. That is a very straightforward amendment. I think anyone who is opposed to that amendment basically says we, the Congress, have no responsibility for oversight, the appropriate committees of the Congress have no responsibility to concern themselves with what is being done with these prisoners at Guantanamo, and I think that is a very unfortunate message for us to send. The amendment goes on to provide that in the report to the appropriate committees of the Congress, if the Department of Defense wishes to submit part or all of that in classified form, it can do so. To the extent it is not required to be in classified form, it would, of course, be a public report. This is a very modest amendment. In fact, the criticism I have heard from people who have generally been aware that I might offer this amendment is: Why does this amendment give the Department of Defense an out? It says with regard to each of these individuals, either charge them with a crime, repatriate them, release them, or tell us what your other plan is, if you have some other plan that you believe is required under the circumstance. That is the very least that this Congress should be doing with regard to these individuals. I, frankly, do not want to ask this Congress to resolve the question of the legality of what is going on at Guantanamo. Some of that is being determined in the courts, as it should be determined in the courts. But, clearly, this Congress has some oversight responsibility. This Congress should be insisting that the Department of Defense specify what action it intends to take, go ahead with whatever action it intends to take in the next 180 days, and at the end of that time report to the Congress as to any detainee for whom it does not intend to go ahead or for whom it has not gone ahead and brought charges against or decided to repatriate or decided to release. So let me just stop with that. I am glad to discuss the amendment further, but I know that my colleague from Connecticut who has a separate amendment dealing with Guantanamo wishes to speak and describe his amendment, and I also see that my colleague from Alabama is on the Senate floor and wishes to speak perhaps on the same issue as well. So, Mr. President, at this point I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment to the Senate for consideration. I understand he is not offering it at this moment but will at a later point. I wish to speak briefly about some of the points he has made and make a few others. There is a philosophical argument which has raged around the world for a long time about whether it is appropriate to have a minimum wage. I am certain that when this Congress decided in 1938 that the United States should have a minimum wage, there was a substantial amount of debate on that philosophical issue. So I concede that to start with. They are having a similar debate in Mexico today. They have a Presidential election coming up in Mexico in a couple of weeks. One of the issues in Mexico is whether they should raise the minimum wage. The minimum wage in Mexico is $4.50 a day. The question is, Should we have a minimum wage and, if so, should it be a minimum wage that actually helps people to stay out of poverty or to work their way out of poverty? That is the issue which the Senator from Massachusetts is raising for consideration today. I believe very strongly that we should have a minimum wage. I believe very strongly that we should change that minimum wage as necessary to keep up with the cost of living and with the poverty rate, as we have determined it, so that people who do work full time for a minimum wage can stay above the poverty line. That would be the ideal. In fact, when we look at the chart that was referred to by the Senator from Massachusetts, which I think is an excellent chart, it points out that beginning about 1980, the minimum wage began to drop precipitously relative to the Federal poverty line. It remains very low and is declining even further today because of the refusal of this Congress and this administration to take action to deal with it. I fear, while very few today would argue that we should have no minimum wage, in fact, that is where we are headed with the policy this administration has adopted. We are continuing to resist efforts to change the minimum wage. The minimum wage is becoming less and less a support for the low-paid workers of this country, and clearly we are way behind in trying to deal with this issue. There is one other issue which I wish to particularly call to my colleagues' attention, and that is the question of whether or not, if there should be a minimum wage, should it be set at the national level or should it be set at the State level or the local level? In fact, we made a decision in 1938 to have a minimum wage set at the national level. Now since the Federal Government has refused in the last 9 years to take any action to moderate or adjust that minimum wage, more and more communities, more and more States are acting to fill that vacuum, and that is what we are seeing all over my State. Let me point out that in my State in 2003, the Santa Fe City Council passed the highest minimum wage increase in the country. In January of 2004, the minimum wage increased to $8.50 per hour. In January of this year, the minimum wage went to $9.50 per hour. It is scheduled to go to $10.50 per hour in 2008 in the city limits of Santa Fe, NM. According to the mayor of Santa Fe, approximately 9,000 families received a raise because of that city ordinance that changed the minimum wage. Believe it or not, the Santa Fe economy did not crumble. In fact, according to a University of New Mexico study that was released last year, job growth in Santa Fe was 3.5 percent the first year that the $8.50 wage was in effect. It was ahead of the 2.1-percent growth in jobs for our State as a whole. Overall, employment increased in each quarter after the living wage went into effect, and it has been especially strong for hotels and restaurants, which have the most low- wage jobs.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I agree entirely with what the Senator from Massachusetts has said. In fact, the governmental assistance programs that are required and that are in place do not have to do the job of filling in the gap between this poverty line and the minimum wage as we have allowed it to exist. So there is a serious issue here. I wish to mention one other aspect of this issue. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I do think my strong impression is there have been many of the positive benefits the Senator cited that we have realized in Santa Fe and other communities in my State where there has been an increase in the minimum wage. One other I would mention is that the number of families in need of temporary assistance has declined significantly since we moved to a higher minimum wage in Santa Fe, and that has been another benefit to the community.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Yes, I will be glad to yield.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. I thank the chairman of the committee, Senator Warner. Let me just make one additional point and then yield the remainder of the time to Senator Kennedy to conclude the argument. The other point is I find the positions of many of the employers who have come in to see me and talk to me about this issue of minimum wage has changed very dramatically over the last year or two. For a long period of time, I found that the owners of hotels and restaurants and other businesses in my State would come to town each year and lobby me against an increase in the minimum wage, believing that increasing the minimum wage would make it more difficult for them to compete. The truth is, now the local communities such as the community of Santa Fe, the community of Albuquerque, and other local communities around the country have begun to change the minimum wage and to essentially take action where the Federal Government has failed to take action. I am finding that these same employers are now coming in and saying: Would you please adjust the Federal minimum wage? Would you please take what is the normal course and keep the Federal minimum wage at a reasonable level so that we do not have every community in the country feeling under pressure to pass an ordinance on the subject? I think that is a reasonable position for them to take. So those same businesses that used to lobby me against increasing the minimum wage are now lobbying me in favor of increasing the minimum wage because they believe very strongly that this is a national issue, that we ought to have a national minimum wage, it ought to be reasonable, and it ought to be adjusted as the cost of living goes up and as the Federal poverty line requires. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment when it actually gets offered. I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on this issue.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when it is appropriate, I would like to offer an amendment to the Defense authorization bill, and I have provided that amendment to the chairman of the committee and to the ranking member. I would like, obviously, to get a vote on that at whatever time is convenient to them and the orderly processing of that legislation. I am told that right now is not the right time, and that I should go ahead and speak as in morning business and explain the amendment, which I am glad to do. This is amendment No. 4317. It has been filed. It is at the desk. I would just explain to people this is an amendment that would propose to expedite the processing of individuals who are being held in Guantanamo. Let me take a brief moment and describe more specifically what the amendment does. With respect to individuals currently held at Guantanamo, the amendment would require that the Government charge, repatriate, or release those prisoners within 180 days of the enactment of this legislation; that is, the completion of the signing by the President of the Defense authorization bill. However, if for any reason the Government has not charged or repatriated or released the individuals within that timeframe provided in the amendment, then the Department of Defense would be required to provide a report regarding why they have not done so to the appropriate committees of the Congress, and this report could be submitted in classified form, if necessary, or in unclassified form. Nothing in the amendment would require the Department of Defense to release any individual who is a threat to the security of the United States. Also, to make it perfectly clear, this amendment does not state that the Guantanamo facility would be closed within 180 days. The amendment merely provides that within that period, which I believe to be a reasonable timeframe, the United States will make a determination regarding what it intends to do with the individuals currently being held there. For example, if an individual is charged and tried before a military tribunal, there is nothing in the amendment that prevents the Government from continuing to detain that person at Guantanamo, either while they are awaiting trial or after they are sentenced, if a sentence is imposed and they are found guilty. My amendment is simply aimed at moving this process along, not at closing the facility. The amendment also provides the Government with flexibility regarding the appropriate venue if it decides to bring charges against an individual. The Government could file charges in a United States district court, in a military tribunal, or in an international criminal tribunal. On June 9, President Bush stated that he believes that those held at Guantanamo ``ought to be tried in courts here in the United States.'' Several days later, on June 14, he said that the best way to ``handle these types of people is through our military courts.'' Frankly, whether they are tried in our military courts or in domestic courts is not of great consequence, as long as the trial is conducted in accordance with due process. What is important is that the individuals whom we believe have committed a crime are brought to justice and those who are not a threat to this Nation are released. This is one of the fundamental premises of our traditional notion of justice, and it is time that we restore our adherence to this important principle. Serious questions have been raised with respect to the military commissions that are currently being used in the few cases where individuals have been charged. In fact, the Supreme Court is expected to rule within the next week or so regarding the legality of such commissions. However, the amendment that I am offering does not favor any one venue over any other venue, should the United States decide to try an individual. The amendment simply states that a person may be charged in a ``military tribunal.'' This could include court martial proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or military commissions. The amendment does not provide the Government with any new authority, nor does it restrict the ability of the Government to bring charges in an appropriate military tribunal. Regardless of what the Supreme Court rules in the Hamdan case, the amendment still maintains flexibility with regard to such decisions. Some may assert that under the laws of war there is no requirement that a person be charged with a crime and that individuals can be held until the end of hostilities. While I understand this argument, we have not applied traditional laws of war with respect to these people. Neither have we applied traditional notions of domestic criminal law. Over the last several years the administration has been adamant that it would not apply the requirements of the Geneva Convention to these prisoners and that Federal courts have no role in providing judicial oversight of the detention of these individuals. The fact is that the administration has made up the rules that apply to these persons as they have gone along. In addition, as the President likes to say, we are fighting an unconventional war of an indefinite duration. The threat of terrorism is not going to be resolved with some formal peace treaty. It is and will remain for some time one of the most significant challenges that you or our Nation will face. It is time that we begin to close the legal black hole that has existed with respect to these individuals and begin to deal with them within some recognized legal framework. As the President stated on June 14 of this year, ``We better have a plan to deal with them in our courts.'' I agree with that. The amendment I am offering would help expedite this process and would ensure that the United States has such a plan. It would also reassert congressional oversight of the process. Under the amendment I am offering, the Government could also send an individual back to his home country, so long as there are not substantial grounds to believe that the individual would be subjected to torture or, if appropriate, the Government could release the individual to a third party country. Nothing in my amendment biases what is done with these individuals. As I have said, the decision of whether a person is charged or repatriated or released is in the discretion of the Government and would be made in a manner consistent with our national security. Some may argue that the 180 days provided under the amendment is not enough time to make such a determination. First, let's remember that many of the people we are talking about have been at Guantanamo for over 4 years. It is my understanding that no new prisoners have been sent to Guantanamo for over 21 months. Every person held at Guantanamo has already gone before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal to determine whether they are so-called enemy combatants. As part of this process, the Department of Defense presents the evidence that it believes provides a basis for the continued detention of the individual. All of the prisoners have been interrogated repeatedly and the intelligence regarding their alleged wrongdoing has been thoroughly vetted. As such, the 6 months provided under this amendment is more than sufficient time to make a decision of what to do with these individuals. There has been plenty of time to gather the information necessary to make a determination of whether or not they should be tried for committing a crime or whether they should be sent to their home country or whether they should be released if they are not in fact a threat to the United States. But, as I mentioned before, if the Government is unable to comply or chooses not to comply, it is simply required at that point--the Secretary of Defense is required--to provide the relevant congressional committees with information regarding why this deadline was not met. These are not earth-shattering proposals that are contained in my amendment. These are all options on which the President has said that he is moving forward. President Bush has stated on several occasions recently that he would like to close Guantanamo and that the individuals being held there should be tried in a court and repatriated or released. This last May, while on a trip to Germany, the President said, ``I would like to close the camp and put the prisoners on trial.'' He has reiterated this position twice this month. He has also stated that the Government is in the process of repatriating certain individuals. According to the Department of Defense, there are about 120 prisoners who have been determined to be eligible for transfer or release. Unfortunately, despite the statements that progress is being made in processing these individuals, the facts are clear. There are currently approximately 460 prisoners that remain in a state of indefinite imprisonment with little prospect of either being held accountable for their actions or being allowed to prove their innocence. Since the United States began sending people to Guantanamo in 2002, only 10 individuals have ever been formally charged with any wrongdoing. From a diplomatic standpoint, the continued indefinite detention of individuals at Guantanamo has damaged our own country. As President Bush said on June 14: No question, Guantanamo sends a signal to some of our friends--provides an excuse, for example, to say the United States is not upholding the values that they are trying to encourage other countries to adhere to. The President is right. I strongly believe that the prolonged indefinite imprisonment of persons without charges is inconsistent with the traditions and values of the United States and that it will continue to cause difficulty in our relations with other nations, including the allies that we rely upon in confronting the threat of terrorism. Frankly, it is embarrassing that when our leaders travel the world they have to constantly respond to questions about why the United States is indefinitely imprisoning people and whether it is engaging in interrogation methods that amount to torture. Where the United States was once a champion of due process and an advocate for the humane treatment of prisoners, we are now subjected to almost universal criticism throughout the world community over our violation of these principles. Our handling of these individuals has not only resulted in serious doubts by our allies about whether we are a nation that respects the rule of law, but they have also given the terrorists around the world an opportunity to use this resentment to advance their goals. In July 2003, almost 3 years ago and over a year and a half after the first person was sent to Guantanamo, I introduced a similar amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would have required the Secretary of Defense to simply report to Congress regarding the status of individuals held at Guantanamo and whether it intended to charge or repatriate or release such individuals. The amendment was aimed at encouraging the Department of Defense to make decisions as to what it intended to do with the individuals and to provide for basic congressional oversight. Opponents of the measure argued that even a report on the administration's intentions placed unwarranted pressure on the administration to make decisions and that additional time was needed to investigate those individuals and to exploit useful intelligence. Since that time, these persons have been interrogated, have been investigated at length, and any useful intelligence information has been gathered. Once again, I anticipate there will be those who say that we need to wait, we need to do nothing, we need to let the process work itself out in the courts or within whatever timeframe the executive branch believes is proper. As Senators, I believe our responsibility is not to sit back and watch as another several years roll by. The time to act is now. Reasserting congressional oversight of this process is long overdue. We have been holding people at Guantanamo for over 4\1/2\ years. The time has come to begin to close this chapter in our Nation's history. It is time for the Senate to provide a clear message that the United States takes seriously its obligation to uphold the rule of law. I have no doubt that we will look back at the Guantanamo experience as an aberration, as a mistaken endeavor that has taken us away from our historic commitment to the rule of law and respect for basic human rights. However, I also believe that we are at a transition period. We have before us an opportunity to change course. I hope my colleagues will support this important measure when I do offer it as an amendment to the Defense authorization bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Snowe, Cochran, Cantwell, Domenici, Lincoln, Jeffords, Collins, Murray, Harkin, Landrieu, Obama, Salazar, and Sessions entitled the ``Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Extension Act of 2006.'' The legislation would extend a provision that was included as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and came from my original legislation, S. 881 in the 108th Congress, with Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska to ensure that the work component of the Medicare physician payment formula is set to ensure that no geographic region is paid less than the national average. The Medicare physician payment formula, known as the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, or RBRVS, is based on three components of each service: work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. The relative value of each service is then multiplied by a geographic adjuster for each Medicare locality, which is known as the Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or GPCIs. Prior to the enactment of this provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the physicians in States that have the worst workforce shortages were being paid far less than their counterparts in States with adequate or even an oversupply of physicians due to the GPCI adjustment. For the ``work component'' in particular, which accounts for about 55 percent of the total Medicare physician payment, an adjustment based on geographic adjustments made little sense. An office visit to a rural physician is no different in time, effort, or workload compared to an office visit to an urban physician. As National Rural Health Association president Dr. Wayne Myers said on January 7, 2003, prior to the legislation's passage, ``An office visit to a rural physician is no different than an office visit to an urban physician. The idea that physicians are reimbursed for their work and their skills at a lower rate simply on the basis that they choose to practice in a rural area and serve our rural communities is completely ludicrous.'' In addition, since Medicare beneficiaries pay the same premium for all Part B services, inequitable physician fee payments result in substantial cross-subsidization from people living in low payment States to people living in higher payment States. Congress determined that such extensive geographic disparities were unfair and, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, language from my bill was included that brought all geographic areas up to the national average for the calculation of this piece of the Medicare physician payment formula. It is important to highlight that the importance of this formula extends well beyond Medicare. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics in its February 8, 2006, update on the Medicare payment formula, ``. . . over 74 percent of public and private payors, including state Medicaid programs, have adopted components of the Medicare RBRVS to reimburse physicians, while many other payors are exploring its implementation.'' Furthermore, Medicare Advantage plan payments are based in large part on fee-for-service payments made in various geographic locations. Disparities in Medicare Advantage payments are also caused, in part, by such geographic adjustments made to physician payments. Unfortunately, these disparities will increase if the ``work component'' in the physician payment rate is allowed to once again fully adjust based on geography. The provision bringing payment levels up to the national average for every geographic area was in effect for 2004-2006 and is set to expire at the end of this calendar year. As a result, physicians, who already face a potential reduction in their overall Medicare payment rate, might also see their payment rates further reduced unless this legislative extension is passed. According to the November 21, 2005, Federal Register notice, if payment rates were not brought up to the national average, there would be reductions in physician payments to the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia outside of Atlanta, Idaho, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland outside of Baltimore region, Michigan outside of Detroit, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, most of New York outside of New York City and suburbs, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon outside of Portland, Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas outside of Houston, Dallas, and Brazoria, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington outside of Seattle, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Lack of equitable reimbursement is a critical factor leading to the shortage of physicians in many rural areas, including the State of New Mexico. The extension of the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Extension Act of 2006 will ensure that the disparity in physician payments between states such as New Mexico and other geographic areas does not once again widen. I urge prompt passage of this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Snowe, Cochran, Cantwell, Domenici, Lincoln, Jeffords, Collins, Murray, Harkin, Landrieu, Obama, Salazar, and Sessions entitled the ``Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Extension Act of 2006.'' The legislation would extend a provision that was included as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 and came from my original legislation, S. 881 in the 108th Congress, with Congressman Doug Bereuter of Nebraska to ensure that the work component of the Medicare physician payment formula is set to ensure that no geographic region is paid less than the national average. The Medicare physician payment formula, known as the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, or RBRVS, is based on three components of each service: work, practice expense, and professional liability insurance. The relative value of each service is then multiplied by a geographic adjuster for each Medicare locality, which is known as the Geographic Practice Cost Indices, or GPCIs. Prior to the enactment of this provision as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, the physicians in States that have the worst workforce shortages were being paid far less than their counterparts in States with adequate or even an oversupply of physicians due to the GPCI adjustment. For the ``work component'' in particular, which accounts for about 55 percent of the total Medicare physician payment, an adjustment based on geographic adjustments made little sense. An office visit to a rural physician is no different in time, effort, or workload compared to an office visit to an urban physician. As National Rural Health Association president Dr. Wayne Myers said on January 7, 2003, prior to the legislation's passage, ``An office visit to a rural physician is no different than an office visit to an urban physician. The idea that physicians are reimbursed for their work and their skills at a lower rate simply on the basis that they choose to practice in a rural area and serve our rural communities is completely ludicrous.'' In addition, since Medicare beneficiaries pay the same premium for all Part B services, inequitable physician fee payments result in substantial cross-subsidization from people living in low payment States to people living in higher payment States. Congress determined that such extensive geographic disparities were unfair and, as part of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, language from my bill was included that brought all geographic areas up to the national average for the calculation of this piece of the Medicare physician payment formula. It is important to highlight that the importance of this formula extends well beyond Medicare. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics in its February 8, 2006, update on the Medicare payment formula, ``. . . over 74 percent of public and private payors, including state Medicaid programs, have adopted components of the Medicare RBRVS to reimburse physicians, while many other payors are exploring its implementation.'' Furthermore, Medicare Advantage plan payments are based in large part on fee-for-service payments made in various geographic locations. Disparities in Medicare Advantage payments are also caused, in part, by such geographic adjustments made to physician payments. Unfortunately, these disparities will increase if the ``work component'' in the physician payment rate is allowed to once again fully adjust based on geography. The provision bringing payment levels up to the national average for every geographic area was in effect for 2004-2006 and is set to expire at the end of this calendar year. As a result, physicians, who already face a potential reduction in their overall Medicare payment rate, might also see their payment rates further reduced unless this legislative extension is passed. According to the November 21, 2005, Federal Register notice, if payment rates were not brought up to the national average, there would be reductions in physician payments to the following States: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia outside of Atlanta, Idaho, parts of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland outside of Baltimore region, Michigan outside of Detroit, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, most of New York outside of New York City and suburbs, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon outside of Portland, Pennsylvania outside of Philadelphia, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas outside of Houston, Dallas, and Brazoria, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington outside of Seattle, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Lack of equitable reimbursement is a critical factor leading to the shortage of physicians in many rural areas, including the State of New Mexico. The extension of the Rural Equity Payment Index Reform Extension Act of 2006 will ensure that the disparity in physician payments between states such as New Mexico and other geographic areas does not once again widen. I urge prompt passage of this important legislation and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in opposition to the legislation before us today, H.R. 8, which would make the repeal of the estate tax permanent starting in 2010. Without so much as a hearing, debate, or markup in the Finance Committee, the majority is bringing the largest tax bill that will be before us this Congress with the clear intent of not allowing the minority any reasonable opportunity to amend it. The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated that repeal of the estate tax will require roughly $370 billion in debt financing through 2016, although a more accurate cost of 10 years of enactment is closer to $1 trillion when interest on the debt is calculated into the equation. At a time when interest rates are being raised steadily to address inflationary fears, it is hardly the time for our Government to be adding to our national debt in this magnitude for tax relief that only benefits the wealthiest in our country. In 2001, in my State of New Mexico, there were only 200 people dying with any estate tax liability. This left roughly 98 percent of New Mexican estates entirely untaxed. If the exemption had been $2.5 million, as will occur in 2009 under current law, 99.7 percent of people dying in New Mexico would have owed no estate taxes. At a time when gas is over $3 a gallon and many businesses are telling me that they can no longer afford to offer health insurance to their workers, I cannot in good conscience support repealing the estate tax--an act that provides a benefit to only about .3 percent of New Mexicans. The effort to permanently repeal the estate tax is a continuation by the majority of giving tax breaks to a small minority of Americans-- those who need it least. Just a couple of weeks ago, the President signed the reconciliation tax bill into law which added 2 additional years of tax relief for those receiving dividends and capital gains. Slowly but surely, the majority is creating a society where those who work for a living will be paying taxes while those who are fortunate enough to have investments or inherited wealth will either avoid taxation or be paying at a significantly lower rate. The result will be a United States that has slid back to economic disparity not seen since the Gilded Age where extreme wealth accumulated in the pockets of our Nation's wealthiest while the average working family was left behind. At a time when gas prices are climbing, the cost of electricity is growing, and health care costs are exploding, it is simply unacceptable that this Congress is devoting time and our children's resources to providing another tax break to the wealthiest among us. Instead this Congress should be looking at ways to reduce the tax burden on folks who only have earned income--and generally not enough of it. I would remind my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that the impact of deficit spending is immense and one that will be borne not only by us in the coming years but by future generations who have no say in our current financial irresponsibility. Since this administration took over and Congress has been controlled solely by one party, we have seen our Nation's economic security drop precipitously. In order to pay for unaffordable tax cuts, we have become a beggar nation, forced to go to foreign countries with our hat in hand asking them to buy our debt. Many of these countries, such as China and Japan, are the very same countries that are becoming more and more competitive with our Nation for high-tech and higher salaried jobs--a fact that is not unrelated. As interest rates continue to rise to combat inflationary pressures, it is costing this Government more and more to sell our debt to our foreign competitors. At the same time, we are facing demand pressures to offer a higher rate of return to attract these wary investors, as they gradually accumulate more of our debt than most economic models would indicate is prudent. The only prudent course of action would be to tighten our belts and balance our budget thereby returning control of our economic prosperity to us instead of leaving it in the hands of our foreign competitors. But instead of coming up with rational tax policy that rewards the majority of Americans who work for a living, we are foisting on these families the delusion that estate tax relief benefits them and handing out further tax cuts to those who have seen their wealth grow at historic rates in the past several years. Mr. President, we owe it to our children and grandchildren to provide them with the opportunities we inherited from our parents. The real ``death tax'' is the one we are leaving for our children to pay when we are gone. With the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act in 1993, we were able to correct years of irresponsible tax policy and head our Nation back in the right direction. By maintaining fiscal discipline, we were able to have our first surplus in decades. It is shameful that we are considering legislation today that, in many senses, is the final nail in the coffin of fiscal responsibility by providing additional tax cuts to the richest in our Nation to the detriment of hard-working American families. This is not the act of a Government that is supposed to represent all of the people in our Nation--a nation that was founded on the belief that the opportunity for prosperity is to be shared by everyone. This legislation is another step toward creating an America that I was not elected to represent by my fellow New Mexicans--the vast majority of whom earn their living by going to work every day. I hope my colleagues will join me in opposing this legislation.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4131 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the purpose of my amendment is to put some type of limits on the number of new legal permanent residents we approve each year in this country, and that is the question. It is sort of a philosophical question and a practical question: Should we limit this number or should we leave it unlimited as the current bill provides? We have two large categories under which we approve new legal permanent residents in this country. Let me put one chart up here to show these two categories. One is called family preference. That is essentially where if a person is already a legal resident in the United States and wants to bring in family members, that is family reunification, and we think that is a good thing and we provide in the law so that can occur. Each year, there can be 480,000 people who gain legal permanent residency in our country under that proposal, and that is right here in the bottom half of this chart. The other main category we use for establishing legal permanent residency is what we call employment-based, and that is where an employer essentially brings someone to this country to work, along with their family. We have always had a limit on that. The limit in the law today is 140,000. Let me go through some of the history of where we have been on this issue. In the law that is applicable today, we allow 140,000 legal permanent residents to be approved each year under the employment-based system. The bill Senator Kennedy and Senator McCain proposed last May, on which I compliment them--they put a great deal of work into it--that bill said, let's increase that number from 140,000 to 290,000, and I think that makes some good sense. The 290,000 was to include the workers and their families, just as current law was to include the workers and their accompanying families. Then, 2 months ago, when the Judiciary Committee began its deliberations, the chairman presented his chairman's mark, and it said: OK, the 290,000 is a good number, but let's only apply it to workers, and then any accompanying family will be extra and not count. So on this chart, you can see that this area at the top is the estimated number of family that might actually come to the country. Now, the estimate is that there would be 1.2 family members accompanying each worker, and that estimate came from the Congressional Research Service. They said they didn't really know because it is a very different mix of people we would have immigrating into this country under this legislation than under current law. But historically, it has been 1.2 people per employee, so let's just assume that, and that gets you up to 638,000, was the Congressional Research Service's estimate of the number of employment- based visas that would be offered under Senator Specter's chairman's mark in the Judiciary Committee. Well, then, of course, we had some additional deliberations here, and we now have the Hagel-Martinez bill. The Hagel-Martinez bill said the 290,000 figure is wrong; let's go to 450,000. And of course the Congressional Research Service said, OK, let's make the same calculation here: 1.2 family members will accompany each of those 450,000 workers, so you add those in and that gets you to 990,000. That is for the first 10 years. After the first 10 years, this legislation calls for that number to drop back down. At this point, let me pause and make a point about this assumption which is built in here. Let me show one other chart. This is a very different group of immigrants we are approving to come into the country under this legislation than is currently approved under existing law. If, in fact, there are more family members who accompany these workers, then these numbers go up pretty dramatically. If, for example, instead of 1.2 people--a spouse and two-tenths of a child--coming in with each worker you had a spouse and 1 child coming in with each worker, then it is 1,350,000. If, in fact, there were 2 children, the spouse and 2 children, it would be 1.8 million people under the assumptions that are built into this legislation. So all I am saying is, we don't know. Under the legislation pending, we don't know whether there are going to be 500,000 employment-based visas issued or a million employment-based visas issued for legal permanent residency or 1.5 million. I think we ought to fix that. My amendment says, let's pick a number. Let's go back to this other chart, and I will show you how we came up with the specific number in the amendment. The number in the amendment tries to be a rounded-off number from what the Judiciary Committee started with and says, look, if they had kept a cap in the Judiciary Committee, as I believe they should have--we have had a cap in this country, a cap on the number of legal permanent residents historically--if we kept a cap, then it should be about 650,000. That is the estimate we came up with. Some people say that is a very high number. That is a high number. That is over four times what we currently permit. It is more than twice what Senators Kennedy and McCain recommended in their legislation, the McCain-Kennedy bill or Kennedy-McCain bill. We have tried to be generous in this and say we should have a lot of new immigrants transferring over to legal permanent status, but we should have some limit on those. The real question for each Senator is going to be whether you agree there ought to be a cap. Do you agree there ought to be a limit? I believe very strongly we should have a limit. I believe the limit we have chosen here is a generous one. To leave this bill with no cap at all would be a mistake. To send this bill out of the Senate without knowing whether we are increasing the legal permanent residents under the employment-based system 4 times or 8 times or 12 times, which is very possible, I think would be a very big mistake. So we need to get some certainty into this. We need to try to be somewhat prudent in what we are doing. Let me just mention one other thing. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me just mention that this cap I am trying to put on is just for one of the categories vailable for people who want to become legal permanent residents, and I need to underscore that. There is still the opportunity to become a legal permanent resident as part of this family preference category. That is 480,000 per year, and we are not in any way affecting that with my amendment. There is still the opportunity, if you are already here in this country and you have been here 2 years under this legislation and you are undocumented, you can go through the earned legalization provisions in the bill and become a legal permanent resident. We are not in any way affecting any of that or trying to limit that. If you are an agricultural worker, there are 1.5 million blue card agricultural workers who are provided with an opportunity to become legal permanent residents in this bill, but we are not in any way affecting that. There are various categories in the bill for highly skilled workers who are able to become legal permanent residents without being subject to any numerical cap. I have supported those provisions. I am not suggesting we put a cap on those provisions. These are highly skilled workers, in many cases people involved in science and engineering and other skills that are important to our economy. Of course, there is provided in the bill an additional estimated 141,000 visas which have been recaptured from the last 5 years because they were unused. We are not doing anything to affect that. That is fine. I have no problem with that. All we are saying is that this large category that we call employment-based legal permanent residents, we should have an annual limit on that. We have had one for over 100 years. We have always limited that. Every country in the world limits that. We should not be the only exception in the world to this general, prudent rule as I see it. We can argue about exactly what the right limit ought to be, but I don't think we should give up on having any cap at all, and that, unfortunately, is what the present bill provides. How much time remains, Mr. President?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I see my colleague from Arizona wishes to speak. I yield the floor and reserve my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I was seeking recognition to ask the Senator from Arizona--he says this is unfair to low-income, low-skilled workers because we are putting a cap of 650,000 on this employment base. His proposal, the McCain-Kennedy bill, limited it. It had a cap of 290,000. I am proposing more than twice the admissions under the employment-based system than his proposal had. I don't understand why mine is unfair to anybody whereas his 290,000 was appropriate. He was proposing 290,000 as a limit on the number of people who could transition to legal permanent status, and that is when the guest worker program was being proposed at 400,000 per year. We have now reduced the guest worker program to 200,000 per year, and I am saying legal permanent residents should not exceed 650,000 per year under the employment-based system, in addition to the family preference, in addition to all the other ways that you can become a legal permanent resident. So I don't think this is that unfair. It is more than twice what he and Senator Kennedy proposed and more than four times the current law. But it does impose some cap. I understand there are people, particularly inside the beltway, who do not want any cap. A lot of the immigrant groups have indicated very clearly they are opposed to any cap, any limit in this category. Of course, the Chamber of Commerce is opposed to any limit in this category. They would prefer to be able to bring in anybody without limit. I think that is not a responsible course, and for that reason I have offered this amendment. I reserve my time.