Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Rockefeller and Feingold that is similar to S. 2906 in the 108th Congress and will have more to say about this legislation when we return in September. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will help address the critical nurse faculty shortage facing our Nation today. The Bureau of Labor statistics estimates that 1,000,000 new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2012. With a nurse faculty workforce that averages 53.5 years of age, we cannot and must not wait any longer to address nurse faculty shortages. Quite simply, we need to educate more doctoral level faculty, or we, as a Nation, will not have enough trained nurses to meet the needs of our aging society. In a 2002 report, the Commission on Higher Education and the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center assembled nursing educators, healthcare providers, business organizations, professional associations, legislators, and New Mexico state agencies to develop a statewide strategic framework for addressing New Mexico's nursing shortage. The initiative revealed that 72 percent of hospitals have curtailed services, 38 percent of home care agencies have refused referrals, 15 percent of long term care facilities have refused admissions, and public health offices have decreased public health services. The number one priority listed in the statewide initiative was to double the number of licensed nursing graduates in the State. And yet, this one simple priority is not so simple. With a doctoral nurse faculty of 53.4 years of age, on average, and 46 vacant nurse faculty positions, in New Mexico, the necessary expansion of programs is not possible. New Mexico is not alone in facing nurse and nurse faculty shortages. The nationwide nursing shortage is expected to more than triple, because the average age of the workforce is near retirement, the population is aging and has increasing healthcare needs, and the shortage is one that affects the entire nation. There is a well-known saying, ``a problem clearly stated is a problem half solved.'' In 2004-2005, over 30,000 qualified nursing school applicants were not accepted into nursing baccalaureate programs. Estimates from the National League for Nursing indicate that over 123,000 qualified applications could not be accommodated in registered nurse educational programs in 2004. The primary reason students are not admitted is lack of trained faculty, funds, and program resources. The real nursing workforce problem that we need to address at the current time is lack of an adequate number of qualified nurse faculty members. The Nurse Faculty Education Act will amend the Nurse Reinvestment Act, P.L. 107-205, to help alleviate the faculty shortage by providing funds to help nursing schools increase enrollment and graduation from nursing doctoral programs. The act will increase partnering opportunities, enhance cooperative education, help support marketing outreach, and strengthen mentoring programs. The bill will increase the number of nurses who complete nursing doctoral programs and seek employment as faculty members and nursing leaders in academic institutions. By addressing the faculty shortage, we are addressing the nursing shortage. The provisions of the Nurse Faculty Education Act are vital to overcoming nursing workforce challenges. By addressing nurse faculty shortages, we will enhance both access to care and the quality of care. Our families and our Nation will be well-served by integration of the Nurse Faculty Education Act into the Nurse Reinvestment Act. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed the Record at this point.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bunning, to introduce the Science Park Administration Act of 2005. This legislation is a result of my travels to Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and India to learn more about their science and technology policies, as well as to discover how they have successfully encouraged similar industries and research entities to work so closely together in these research parks. Let me discuss some findings from my fact finding trips regarding the role of science parks in economic development. Last summer, I visited the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park which the Hong Kong Government is funding at $423 million. By 2006, this investment will help construct 10 buildings, over 1 million square feet of office and laboratory space, that will cluster IC design, photonics, biotechnology and information technology. This science park, like the others I visited in Asia, teams up with the local universities on collaborative research efforts. It has an incubation center with 83 start-up companies, and provides them low cost space, business planning, marketing, and employee training, as well as research and development grants from the Hong Kong Government to overcome the ``valley of death'' challenges so many new technology companies frequently face. One of the most impressive features of this park is the Integrated Circuit, IC, Design and Development Support Center. This is a user facility with shared state of the art equipment to support the entire IC product development cycle, from initiation design to production release. For example, as many as 16 vendors can combine their designs onto a single wafer, thus reducing initial prototype foundry costs by 94 percent. I was also briefed on the Hong Kong Cyber Port, another science park devoted solely to information technology, IT, and multimedia companies that trains employees and conducts collaborative research. The Hong Kong Government is investing $2 billion between 2000 and 2007 to house 10,000 IT professionals and 100 IT companies in over 1 million square feet of work space. The Hong Kong Government's combined investment in developing the infrastructure to attract science-based companies to these two parks is about $400 million annually over a period of six years. On a comparable GDP scale, the United States would have to spend $31 billion annually for that same period for a total of $186 billion. This past January, I spent 10 days in India reviewing their science and technology policies, and was particularly impressed with their development of Software Technology Parks. These parks were first developed in 1991 by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications as a semiautonomous entity to promote India's developing IT industry. They provide the infrastructure in terms of space, internet access, tax breaks and-one stop clearances for government approvals. Generous tax considerations exempt companies until 2010 from corporate income tax and excise duties on purchased goods. As my colleagues are aware, the growth rate of India's IT industry have been phenomenal. There are now more than 1,000 companies in 44 such software parks in India, the largest located around Hyderabad and Bangalore considered to be India's ``Silicon Valleys.''. Last year these parks had a combined net export value of $50 billion, up 37 percent from the prior year. Companies such as Infosys, which maintains software for large firms overseas, are located in these parks, and their 2004 revenues jumped by 50 percent. Last year, they received 1.2 million online job applications; they gave a standardized test to 300,000, interviewed 30,000, and hired 10,000. Much of India's success in the IT industry can be attributed not only to their universities, but to the government's decision 1991 to establish these Software Technology Parks. Building on that success, and with the government's encouragement, these Software Parks are now set to launch biotechnology parks. Taiwan's success in the global market place is a result of building the Hsinchu Science Park in the 1980s. Today, Hsinchu has over 100,000 technically trained people, 325 companies, 6 national labs and $22 billion in gross revenue. The government has duplicated these parks in two other locations of the island. The science parks being built throughout Asia are modeled after Taiwan's Hsinchu Science Park. Let me note that these Asian science parks have several common features: First the Government commits to provide a first-class infrastructure to accommodate all levels of science-based companies, from small start- ups in incubators to large manufacturing plants. Second, these parks align companies of similar interests to mutually reinforce each other along the supply and management chain. Third, the Government provides virtually one-stop shopping for government approvals, even including loans. Fourth, the Government provides tax incentives, usually in the form of waiving taxes on the first several years of profit, and capital gains on acquired stock. Fifth, and most importantly, the Government takes the long view of partnering with the local governments to ensure that a trained workforce is readily available to support the parks' growth, by teaming with universities and national laboratories. If we fail to learn from these Asian success stories, we are in danger of losing the very high technology industries we first started, because the low cost manufacturing operations in Asia are now moving up the value chain to research intensive industries, which the Government facilitates by building science parks. That leads me to the legislation we are introducing today. The premise of the legislation is straight forward. It does not pick industry winners or losers. Rather, it simply provides a synergistic science-based infrastructure that companies may compete for and thrive in. Just like in Asia, the government acts as a facilitator not micromanager. The legislation first proposes a series of competitively peer- reviewed science park planning grants to local governments. A revolving loan fund in six regional centers is proposed to allow existing science parks to upgrade their infrastructure. The legislation proposes a loan guarantee fund for the construction of new science parks. Additionally, the legislation proposes a Science Park Venture Capital Fund similar to SBIC's, that would guarantee debentures issued by the Fund to raise capital for start-up companies trying to bridge that valley of death, where ideas must move from the laboratory to working prototype. Moreover, the legislation proposes several tax incentives to locate in the park. The full cost of property placed in the park could be deducted in the year it was purchased without regard to the existing caps. Many times high-tech equipment is expensive and loses its value quickly, and this provision would cover that loss. The legislation proposes a flat 20 percent R&D tax credit without regard to any expenditure in the base period to spur greater research investment on a broader range of projects. Finally, the legislation ensures that the status of tax exempt bonds used to fund science park infrastructure remain tax exempt eliminating the uncertainty associated with its interpretation under the Bayh-Dole Act. I believe this legislation combines many of the best ideas I have discovered on my Asian fact finding trips. I hope it attracts the support from both sides of the aisle as a truly bipartisan effort as we need this type of infrastructure investment more than ever before if we are to successfully compete in today's global environment. I 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 Rockefeller and Feingold that is similar to S. 2906 in the 108th Congress and will have more to say about this legislation when we return in September. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today with Senators Domenici, Murray, Jeffords, Alexander, Cantwell, Akaka, Reed, Chafee, Leahy, Dodd, and Dayton we introduce legislation entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2005.'' This legislation would extend provisions that were included in Public Laws #108-74 and 108-127 that amended the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to permit the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin to apply some of their enhanced SCHIP matching funds toward the coverage of certain children enrolling in Medicaid that were part of expansions of coverage to children through Medicaid in those 11 states prior to the enactment of SCHIP. As a article in the September/October 2004 issue of Health Affairs by Genevieve Kenney and Debbie Chang points out, when SCHIP was created, ``Inequities were . . . introduced across states because those that had already expanded Medicaid coverage to children could not receive the higher SCHIP matching rate for these children . . . [and this] meant that states that had been ahead of the curve in expanding Medicaid eligibility for children were penalized financially relative to states that expanded coverage after SCHIP.'' The article adds that ``additional cross-state inequities were introduced'' during the creation of SCHIP because three states had their prior expansions grandfathered in during the bill's consideration. Left behind were the aforementioned 11 states. Fortunately, with the passage of Public Laws #108-74 and 108-127 in 2003, the inequity was recognized and the 11 states, including New Mexico, were allowed to use up to 20 percent of our State's enhanced SCHIP allotments to pay for Medicaid eligible children above 150 percent of poverty that were part of Medicaid expansions prior to the enactment of SCHIP. As the Congressional Research Service notes, ``The primary purpose of the 20 percent allowance was to enable qualifying states to receive the enhanced FMAP [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage] for certain children who likely would have been covered under SCHIP had the state not expanded their regular Medicaid coverage before SCHIP's enactment in August 1997.'' Unfortunately, one major problem with the compromise was that it only allowed the 11 states flexibility with their SCHIP funds for allotments between 1998 and 2001 and not in the future. Therefore, the inequity continues with SCHIP allotments from 2002 and on. In fact, with the expiration of SCHIP funds from FY 1998-2000 as of September 2004, that leaves the 11 states with only the ability to spend FY 2001 SCHIP allotments on expansion children. For those states, such as Vermont and Rhode Island, that have already spent their 2001 SCHIP allotments, they no longer benefit from the passage of this provision. Furthermore, the FY 2001 funds will also expire at the end of September 2005. Thus, under current law, no spending under these provisions will be permitted in fiscal year 2006 or thereafter. Therefore, our legislation today prevents the full expiration of this provision for our 11 states and ensures that the compromise language is extended in the future. It is important to states such as New Mexico that have been severely penalized for having expanded coverage to children through Medicaid prior to the enactment of SCHIP. In fact, due to the SCHIP inequity, New Mexico has been allocated $266 million from SCHIP between fiscal years 1998 and 2002, and yet, has only been able to spend slightly over $26 million as of the end of last fiscal year. In other words, New Mexico has been allowed to spend less than 10 percent of its federal SCHIP allocations because the expansion children have been previously ineligible for the enhanced SCHIP matching funds. As the health policy statement by the National Governors' Association reads, ``The Governors believe that it is critical that innovative states not be penalized for having expanded coverage to children before the enactment of S-CHIP, which provides enhanced funding to meet these goals. To this end, the Governors support providing additional funding flexibility to states that had already significantly expanded coverage to the majority of uninsured children in their states.'' It is important to note the bill does not take money from other states' CHIP allotments. It simply allows our states to spend our States' specific CHIP allotments from the federal government on our uninsured children--just as other states across the country are doing. According to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service, thus far eight states have benefited financially from the passage of the legislation. In the fourth quarter of 2003 and for all four quarters in 2004, Hawaii reported federal SCHIP expenditures using the 20 percent allowance in the amount of $380,000, Maryland received $106,000, New Hampshire received $2.1 million, New Mexico received $2.3 million, Rhode Island received $485,000, Tennessee received $4.5 million, Vermont received $475,000, and Washington received $22.2 million. I urge that this very important provision for our states be included in the budget reconciliation package the Congress is preparing to consider in September and ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Nancy Falk, who is a fellow in my office, be granted the privileges of the floor during the pendency of H.R. 6.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, it has come to my attention that section 1289 of the Domenici Energy Policy Act of 2005 could be interpreted as requiring FERC approval of certain foreign transactions wholly outside of the United States. I am a strong supporter of section 1289 because I believe it is vital, especially since we are repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, that FERC be given the authority it needs to protect U.S. consumers. In my opinion, section 1289 gives FERC the appropriate authority to ensure that utility mergers and acquisitions do not adversely impact consumers. I also think it is appropriate for FERC to be able to ensure that retail customers in the United States do not subsidize foreign acquisitions. However, Section 1289 could also be interpreted as requiring FERC approval of a holding company's acquisition of a foreign utility where the holding company has no retail customers in this country. A company that has a subsidiary that simply owns generation assets in the United States for wholesale electric sales is also defined as a holding company. As a result, that holding company's acquisition of an electric utility company operating entirely overseas could be interpreted as being subject to FERC's purview as a result of section 1289 of the bill we are considering today. Subjecting foreign utility acquisitions by holding companies without any U.S. retail customers to FERC oversight could potentially have a chilling effect on investment here in the United States. At a time that we are trying to encourage investment in U.S. generation, we may be dissuading investments coming into the United States if a foreign-based holding company believes its next transaction in Great Britain is going to be subject to a FERC merger review proceeding. Moreover, the ``public interest'' test present in section 203 of the Federal Power Act does not readily fit the situation present with respect to foreign transactions. I note that section 1289 does give FERC the authority to, by rulemaking, identify types of transactions that will receive expedited Commission review. I certainly believe that the acquisition of a foreign utility company by a holding company with no retail customers in the United States should fall in that category. Other categories of foreign transactions that could possibly be interpreted as being covered by section 1289 also may fall into this category.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleague.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with regard to this bill, I want to acknowledge, of course, all of the very complimentary statements many colleagues have made about the good work Senator Domenici and I did on this bill. Clearly, I have myself complimented Senator Domenici for his leadership in this regard many times. The fact is this bill is the result of much good work by many Members, much good work by the staffs of our committee and the staffs of many Members individually, and work that has occurred over a very long period of time. So I think some of the relief some of us are feeling as a result of seeing this finally come to completion is because of the multiple years that have gone into this effort to get a bill we could agree upon. Every time a bill, particularly a bill of this size and comprehensiveness, comes to the Senate floor, it requires a balancing of those provisions which are positive and constructive with those that are less so, and in some cases are negative. I feel very strongly that the positive outweighs the negative in this bill. There are many provisions that will move us in the right direction. My colleagues have been alluding to those this morning in many of their statements and there are things we need to come back and try to correct in the future, and we will have that opportunity. There are issues we were unable to address in this bill that we will hopefully be able to address in the coming months that I think also need to be mentioned. All of the discussion has been useful. All of the good work, particularly of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee members, has been appreciated. I again appreciate very much the process that has been followed in getting us to this point. I compliment all colleagues, and I yield the floor. I know Senator Domenici wishes to make a final statement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bunning, to introduce the Science Park Administration Act of 2005. This legislation is a result of my travels to Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and India to learn more about their science and technology policies, as well as to discover how they have successfully encouraged similar industries and research entities to work so closely together in these research parks. Let me discuss some findings from my fact finding trips regarding the role of science parks in economic development. Last summer, I visited the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park which the Hong Kong Government is funding at $423 million. By 2006, this investment will help construct 10 buildings, over 1 million square feet of office and laboratory space, that will cluster IC design, photonics, biotechnology and information technology. This science park, like the others I visited in Asia, teams up with the local universities on collaborative research efforts. It has an incubation center with 83 start-up companies, and provides them low cost space, business planning, marketing, and employee training, as well as research and development grants from the Hong Kong Government to overcome the ``valley of death'' challenges so many new technology companies frequently face. One of the most impressive features of this park is the Integrated Circuit, IC, Design and Development Support Center. This is a user facility with shared state of the art equipment to support the entire IC product development cycle, from initiation design to production release. For example, as many as 16 vendors can combine their designs onto a single wafer, thus reducing initial prototype foundry costs by 94 percent. I was also briefed on the Hong Kong Cyber Port, another science park devoted solely to information technology, IT, and multimedia companies that trains employees and conducts collaborative research. The Hong Kong Government is investing $2 billion between 2000 and 2007 to house 10,000 IT professionals and 100 IT companies in over 1 million square feet of work space. The Hong Kong Government's combined investment in developing the infrastructure to attract science-based companies to these two parks is about $400 million annually over a period of six years. On a comparable GDP scale, the United States would have to spend $31 billion annually for that same period for a total of $186 billion. This past January, I spent 10 days in India reviewing their science and technology policies, and was particularly impressed with their development of Software Technology Parks. These parks were first developed in 1991 by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications as a semiautonomous entity to promote India's developing IT industry. They provide the infrastructure in terms of space, internet access, tax breaks and-one stop clearances for government approvals. Generous tax considerations exempt companies until 2010 from corporate income tax and excise duties on purchased goods. As my colleagues are aware, the growth rate of India's IT industry have been phenomenal. There are now more than 1,000 companies in 44 such software parks in India, the largest located around Hyderabad and Bangalore considered to be India's ``Silicon Valleys.''. Last year these parks had a combined net export value of $50 billion, up 37 percent from the prior year. Companies such as Infosys, which maintains software for large firms overseas, are located in these parks, and their 2004 revenues jumped by 50 percent. Last year, they received 1.2 million online job applications; they gave a standardized test to 300,000, interviewed 30,000, and hired 10,000. Much of India's success in the IT industry can be attributed not only to their universities, but to the government's decision 1991 to establish these Software Technology Parks. Building on that success, and with the government's encouragement, these Software Parks are now set to launch biotechnology parks. Taiwan's success in the global market place is a result of building the Hsinchu Science Park in the 1980s. Today, Hsinchu has over 100,000 technically trained people, 325 companies, 6 national labs and $22 billion in gross revenue. The government has duplicated these parks in two other locations of the island. The science parks being built throughout Asia are modeled after Taiwan's Hsinchu Science Park. Let me note that these Asian science parks have several common features: First the Government commits to provide a first-class infrastructure to accommodate all levels of science-based companies, from small start- ups in incubators to large manufacturing plants. Second, these parks align companies of similar interests to mutually reinforce each other along the supply and management chain. Third, the Government provides virtually one-stop shopping for government approvals, even including loans. Fourth, the Government provides tax incentives, usually in the form of waiving taxes on the first several years of profit, and capital gains on acquired stock. Fifth, and most importantly, the Government takes the long view of partnering with the local governments to ensure that a trained workforce is readily available to support the parks' growth, by teaming with universities and national laboratories. If we fail to learn from these Asian success stories, we are in danger of losing the very high technology industries we first started, because the low cost manufacturing operations in Asia are now moving up the value chain to research intensive industries, which the Government facilitates by building science parks. That leads me to the legislation we are introducing today. The premise of the legislation is straight forward. It does not pick industry winners or losers. Rather, it simply provides a synergistic science-based infrastructure that companies may compete for and thrive in. Just like in Asia, the government acts as a facilitator not micromanager. The legislation first proposes a series of competitively peer- reviewed science park planning grants to local governments. A revolving loan fund in six regional centers is proposed to allow existing science parks to upgrade their infrastructure. The legislation proposes a loan guarantee fund for the construction of new science parks. Additionally, the legislation proposes a Science Park Venture Capital Fund similar to SBIC's, that would guarantee debentures issued by the Fund to raise capital for start-up companies trying to bridge that valley of death, where ideas must move from the laboratory to working prototype. Moreover, the legislation proposes several tax incentives to locate in the park. The full cost of property placed in the park could be deducted in the year it was purchased without regard to the existing caps. Many times high-tech equipment is expensive and loses its value quickly, and this provision would cover that loss. The legislation proposes a flat 20 percent R&D tax credit without regard to any expenditure in the base period to spur greater research investment on a broader range of projects. Finally, the legislation ensures that the status of tax exempt bonds used to fund science park infrastructure remain tax exempt eliminating the uncertainty associated with its interpretation under the Bayh-Dole Act. I believe this legislation combines many of the best ideas I have discovered on my Asian fact finding trips. I hope it attracts the support from both sides of the aisle as a truly bipartisan effort as we need this type of infrastructure investment more than ever before if we are to successfully compete in today's global environment. I 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 Senator Inouye entitled the Medicaid Health Plan Rebate Act of 2005. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation developed by the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, a policy statement by the American Public Human Services Association on the issue, and a letter of support from the Medicaid Health Plans of America be printed in the Record. I further ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is fine. Go ahead.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me say how pleased I am that we are able to bring back to the Senate a conference report on energy policy that is truly a bipartisan consensus document. This bipartisan consensus had its beginnings earlier this year in our committee, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where the chairman, Senator Domenici, my colleague from New Mexico, reached out to those of us on the Democratic side and pledged to work in good faith to bring to the Senate a comprehensive Energy bill. We readily accepted that invitation and we had a very open and bipartisan committee process. The result of that process was a bill that was recommended to the Senate by the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources by a vote of 21 to 1. On the floor of the Senate when this bill was first being considered, we continued to work together in that open and bipartisan process. The result was that the Senate as a whole passed the Energy bill by a margin of 85 to 12. In conference, my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, was adamant that we use an open and a bipartisan process there as well, and include House Democratic Members and staff who had not been included in the past in that same process. I congratulate Senator Domenici on the passage of the resolution that we adopted earlier this evening to designate this the Domenici Energy Policy Act of 2005. He successfully persuaded the chairman of our conference, Congressman Joe Barton, of the wisdom of proceeding in an open and bipartisan manner, and it proved to work very well. The bipartisan and bicameral conference committee staff was able, in short order, to resolve many of the technical issues that are so important to get right in this complex area of legislation. As they encountered issues that were unresolvable by the staff and needed guidance from members, Chairmen Barton and Domenici and Ranking Member Dingell and I were able to work together to forge compromises that we thought could be recommended to the entire conference. Those compromises, in fact, were embraced in almost all cases by our respective colleagues. The result was a conference report that was signed by 13 of the 14 Senate conferees. That conference report is 1,724 pages in length. I do not think you can judge the quality of legislation by the size of it, but I do think the size of it indicates the comprehensiveness of this legislation and the complexity of it. The conference report was adopted earlier today in the House of Representatives with 75 House Democrats voting for the legislation, led by Congressman John Dingell. Most of us came away from the conference with many provisions that we were happy to have in the final conference report and some provisions that we reluctantly had to give up on. I, for example, am very sorry that the bill before us does not contain the renewable portfolio standard which would require utilities to produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable sources. I know Chairman Barton is disappointed that he was not able to get a number of his priorities agreed to in the conference. But the nature of a good conference is that it is a give and take and not everything ultimately can be agreed to. So compromise is the order of the day. The result of this conference is a bill that has many more bright spots than flaws and a bill that deserves passage by the Senate and the signature of the President. I will mention a number of the bright spots, and then I will acknowledge some of the flaws and gaps that are contained in the conference report. The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy supplies from a number of sources. As I have often said, increased domestic energy production is one of the four key elements of sound energy policy. We have good provisions for producing oil and gas in an environmentally responsible way, for unlocking the untapped energy potential on Indian lands, for relicensing of hydroelectric dams, for improving geothermal leasing on Federal lands, and for opening a path to renewable resources in offshore environments. We are making a major push in the area of energy from coal toward new technologies that have better environmental characteristics and that will be adaptable to a future in which we may want to capture and sequester carbon dioxide. The conference report has strong provisions for increasing energy efficiency. Over a dozen new appliance efficiency standards are called for under this act. The Federal Government's own energy efficiency will be enhanced through the strengthening of the Federal Energy Management Program and through extension of authority to enter into energy-saving performance contracts. The conference report expands authorizations both for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program and weatherization and State energy programs. The conference report has perhaps some of the strongest provisions in the area of protection of energy consumers. Both the electricity and natural gas provisions of the conference report contain broad new provisions to ensure market transparency and to prohibit market manipulation. In the area of electric utility mergers, we have expanded the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission over mergers involving existing generation plants; that is, plants that are in existence at the time the merger takes place. We have also created new requirements in the Federal Power Act for special scrutiny for possible cross subsidization as a result of mergers. Before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can approve a merger, it must find that any possible cross subsidization is actually consistent with the public interest, which I think will prove to be both a flexible and a strong protection for ratepayers and for workers and for other persons who should be protected if we are being consistent with the public interest. The conference report authorizes a broad range of research and development and demonstration and deployment activities for new energy technologies that will help us toward our energy future. It couples them with energy tax incentives and a comprehensive new approach to loan guarantees at the Department that will help these technologies over the final threshold into commercialization. This latter part of the bill is a particular accomplishment of Chairman Domenici that I think will pay off in this country for years to come. The conference report also will result in major changes in our national slate of transportation fuels. It requires that we reach a target of 7.5 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012. It sets a path forward for the development and commercial introduction of ethanol made from cellulosic biomass which promises to have a profound impact on our ability to manufacture and use renewable fuels in the future. Our work on fuels and fuel additives in this conference report is not complicated by the issue of developing safe harbors for product liability claims for any fuel additive, whether ethanol or MTBE. Resolving this dispute involved including a provision that, when it first appeared in the publicly released base text of the conference report, caused some confusion. I know that some Members may want to address this issue in this debate. The best explanation, though, of the intent of this provision was given by Chairman Barton himself in the course of the final public meeting of the Energy bill conference Monday night. He did it in the course of an exchange with Congressman Bart Stupak of Michigan, who was about to offer a clarifying amendment to this provision in the conference report. Based on the understanding conveyed in that exchange, Congressman Stupak decided that he did not need to offer his intended amendment. Since that exchange was crucial to how this provision was dealt with in conference, I ask unanimous consent that the transcript of that exchange be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there is much more that I could say on behalf of the energy conference report that is before us, but I want to allow time for others to speak as well. It is worth acknowledging that in the process of conferencing with the House, we had to yield to their strong demands and desires in a few areas. Some of those provisions, in my view, were misguided. They include some weakening of environmental laws and some additional subsidies to energy industries that are probably unnecessary. I am sure that some of my colleagues will explore those problems in more detail. But these flaws, serious as they are, do not, in my opinion, lead to a conclusion that this bill should not be enacted. On balance, this is a good bill for the country and the best Energy bill this Congress is going to produce. We should enact it into law. To the extent that there are gaps in the bill, that there are subjects that we should have covered and have not adequately covered, we need to look to the future. It has taken Congress over 4 years to craft this Energy bill. The Energy bill prior to that was the Energy Policy Act of 1992, passed 13 years ago. When we complete this bill, I don't believe we have the luxury of waiting another 13 years to pass the next Energy bill. The energy security needs of this country that are not addressed in this bill will not wait for another decade for attention. The threats posed by our dependence on oil imports or by global warming will continue to face us and will continue to grow as issues. This bill does maintain and increase our investment on a range of clean energy sources, but it does not contain a critical mechanism that was contained in the Senate Energy bill; that is, the renewable portfolio standard that I referred to earlier. This bill has positive and helpful measures to increase domestic refining, but consumers will still face burdens at the gas pump. There is critical work to be done on these issues, but I believe the positive message coming out of this bill is that we have developed a truly bipartisan way to move forward on those issues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think that I speak both for myself and for my colleague who is chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources in saying that we intend to work together both in the short term and in the long term to address the issues that need additional attention in this general legislation. He has my pledge to continue to work in this Congress to advance the ball and to get to a finish line on proposals that we could not achieve closure on in the context of this bill. Let me just mention three of those. First, flexible mandatory measures to address global warming. We had an excellent hearing which Chairman Domenici chaired in the Energy Committee. In fact, during the time that this bill was being considered in conference, time was taken out to have this hearing on the issue of global warming. I believe it was a very useful hearing. Chairman Domenici stated that it was the first of several that we may be able to have to better understand that issue and see if a consensus can be reached on a path forward in dealing with it. Second, doing more to tap the potential of renewable energy. Again, I believe that more can be done there, and I hope we can revisit that issue before this Congress adjourns. Third, we need to continue to focus on oil savings. The United States imports more than 65 percent of our oil, and the Energy bill will not reduce those imports significantly. Reducing oil consumption will make us less dependent on foreign oil and ultimately save Americans money at the gas pump. Although the oil savings approach that we took in the Senate bill did not win acceptance by the House of Representatives, that is a concept that continues to hold promise as a way of addressing the problem, and we need to revisit that issue in legislation, in my view, as soon as we possibly can. We worked hard to create the Energy bill compromise before us today. We should enact that compromise and move forward aggressively to ensure that it is implemented rapidly by the executive branch of our Government. If there are negative consequences to what we have enacted, then we can document those and work to correct those errors. If there are topics we need to address more effectively, then we certainly can do that. Again, I congratulate my friend and colleague on his accomplishment. But securing our energy future in some sense is a job that is never done. I look forward after we have had time to rest and reflect on what has been done to again begin the effort to address policies that will increase our energy security, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, provide for more use of clean energy, lower gas prices, and deal with the emissions that are leading to global warming. Again, I congratulate my colleague and all members of the conference and all Members of the Senate for the constructive approach they have taken to the development of this legislation. At this point, I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Chairman Barton. Are there other amendments from the House conferees to Title XV? Mr. Stupak. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have an amendment at the desk, but if I may, before I offer it, I would like to ask you, as chairman, a couple questions on Section 1504, if I may? Chairman Barton. The gentleman is recognized. Mr. Stupak. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your willingness to come to a consensus on the MTBE. I know it has been a difficult couple days, and I am trying to get this thing resolved and I---- Chairman Barton. Well, I am not consenting, I am just admitting that I don't have the votes in the Senate. Mr. Stupak. Well, your willingness to work with the conference committee. Chairman Barton. I know when to fold them and this is one time you got to fold them. So what was the question? Mr. Stupak. Well, in light of that, Mr. Chairman, I just want to be clear about one of the compromise provisions that's been inserted into the amendment and this is Section 1504, called Claims Filed After Enactment. Can the chairman clarify for us what this language means and is intended to do, this Section 1504? Chairman Barton. If you will suspend just briefly. Mr. Stupak. Yes, sir. Chairman Barton. The Section 1504 is a negotiated section between the House and the Senate, that in lieu of the base text language in the House bill on MTBE, we put in a section that is permissive, that for prospective claims, defendants may request that they be consolidated in a Federal court as opposed to a State court. It is a permissive, not mandatory, thing. Mr. Stupak. So in that case, then it can remain in the State courts. So this provision does not in any way give the Federal courts a new subject jurisdiction over MTBE cases? Chairman Barton. The base text that's before the conferees, on existing MTBE lawsuits, changes nothing on prospective MTBE lawsuits, that is, lawsuits that have not yet been filed. Mr. Stupak. Correct. Chairman Barton. It gives the defendant in the lawsuit, the prospective lawsuit, if it were to be filed, the right to request that the lawsuit be sent to a Federal court. Mr. Stupak. Or it could remain the State court if---- Chairman Barton. Well, it just gives them right to request it. Now I am not an attorney, so I am not--but that's what the section does. Mr. Stupak. I just want to make sure that the Federal courts don't have an exclusive right to try these cases and it is my understanding they would not, based upon---- Chairman Barton. Well, of the existing cases that have already been filed, they are in the hundreds, all but 12 are in Federal court. Mr. Stupak. Correct. Chairman Barton. They are 12 that are in State court. Mr. Stupak. So it is really---- Chairman Barton. I don't think this section is unduly restrictive or adverse to the current situation. Mr. Stupak. So Section 1504, then, is it fair to say, gives those involved in future MTBE litigation or disputes, the discretionary ability to remove their case to Federal court? Chairman Barton. No, it gives them the right to request it. Mr. Stupak. Okay. Chairman Barton. That's all. Mr. Stupak. Discretionary. They don't have to. It is within their discretion to go to Federal court, if the defendants so choose. Chairman Barton. That's correct. Mr. Stupak. And then it is up to the judge whether or not the case is properly there or remanded back to State court? Chairman Barton. That's my understanding. Mr. Stupak. So we are not conferring a new substantive or subject matter jurisdiction over these cases? Chairman Barton. Not to my knowledge. Mr. Stupak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I will not offer my amendment. Chairman Barton. We appreciate the gentleman.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Senator Kerry will be the first Senator on this side, followed by Senator Wyden. So why don't we go back and forth, if that is acceptable.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Finally, the conference report contains an entire title designed to help Native Americans promote the development of tribal energy resources, including an innovative program of tribal energy resource agreements. Would the distinguished chairman of the Senate conferees comment on this title?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to comment on two specific provisions of the conference report. I am pleased that the provisions contained in the conference report on hydroelectric relicensing, section 241--Alternative Conditions and Fishways, have been improved over the provisions contained in both the House and Senate bills. I continue to have concerns that the new process for alternative mandatory conditions and fishway prescriptions will add complexity and delay to the process. The requirement that the resource agencies afford all parties an opportunity for an on the record trial-type hearing on material issues of fact could prolong these proceedings. However, I understand that the intent behind the provision is that these not be lengthy hearings. Rather they are to afford an opportunity for a review of narrow issues of fact, and not a review of the application of the facts or the decisions based upon them. I am pleased that the provisions allow all parties to the proceedings, including States, tribes and third parties, to participate equally. I understand the conference language ensures that the heads of the resource agencies retain discretion to employ scientific data and other information submitted by any of the parties to licensing or relicensing proceedings in determining what conditions will provide for adequate protection and use of tribal lands and what fishways are needed for the protection of fishery resources for which the United States has a legal or trust responsibility to preserve and protect on behalf of Indian tribes. I also am satisfied that the conference language preserves the principle that Indian lands and fishery resources held in trust by the United States, or for which the United States has legal responsibility, will continue to be protected and preserved in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Federal Power Act of 1920 and subsequent rulings of the Federal courts that reaffirm these protections for tribal lands and fishery resources. Finally, I understand the motivation behind these provisions to be an effort to improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of conditions and fishways--and not to be an opportunity to undermine the conditions and fishways that resource agencies determine are necessary for the adequate protection of federal reservations and fish resources. I expect that the resource agencies will carry out these provisions with this intent in mind. Mr. President, section 354, Enhanced Oil and Natural Gas Production Through Carbon Dioxide Injection grants the Secretary authority to provide royalty relief in order to achieve the dual purposes of the section, which are both to promote the capturing, transporting, and injection of produced carbon dioxide, natural carbon dioxide and ``other appropriate gases or other matter'' for sequestration, and to promote oil and gas production by providing incentives to undertake enhanced recovery techniques using injection of these substances. It is my understanding that the provision is intended to encourage the sequestration of greenhouse gases, and the ``other gases or matter'' referred to are gases and matter that fall within that definition. I understand the intent to be that any royalty relief under this section be made available only where doing so achieves the dual purposes of benefitting the environment through sequestration of greenhouse gases while also bringing about enhanced recovery. BLM Cost Recovery

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I share the understanding of the language expressed by my friend from New York.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the joint explanatory statement accompanying the conference report on the energy bill is noteworthy for its brevity, but somewhat short on explanations. The managers simply did not have time to say more than we did if we were to file the conference report in time for both the House and Senate to act on it before the August recess. As a result, the statement of managers omits explanations of several important provisions that many of us believe are key to understanding the agreements we reached on these issues and the meaning of these provisions. In some cases, specific text had already been negotiated and agreed upon for inclusion in the managers' statement, and the assurance that the agreed upon text would be included in the managers' statement was a critical component of the compromise reached on the legislative text. Would the senior Senator from New Mexico, as the chairman of the Senate conferees, be willing to put these explanations on the record for the information of all Senators?

Mr. BINGAMAN. The first of these explanations relates to section 210, which establishes two grant programs to improve the use of forest biomass for energy production. Section 210 was included in response to Federal land managers and other experts that have recommended removing some of the slash, brush, pre-commercial thinnings, and other non- merchantable wood and plant material from many of our forests to improve forest health and reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire. One hurdle that must be overcome is that in many regions of the country there currently are few economically viable enterprises using this type of biomass. If a viable market for these materials existed, the ultimate cost of forest restoration treatments would decrease as landowners who currently pay to have this biomass removed could sell it at a profit. During the conference, we deliberated about the potential for the grants authorized by these programs to adversely affect current and future markets for using such material for other value-added products that are not provided grants through these programs. Along with biomass energy, alternative markets are a critical element of the effort to make forest health treatments cost-effective. This was a significant concern, was it not?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the second of these issues relates to oil and gas leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 established the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. Four years later, the Department of the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1981, Public Law 96- 514, directed the Secretary of the Interior to open the Reserve to competitive oil and gas leasing, subject to specific terms and conditions. Both the House bill and the Senate amendment transferred the competitive leasing program in the appropriations act into the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. The Senate amendment went further, however, by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, and to mitigate, adverse effects from leasing and development activities. The conference report omits this additional Senate language. It is my understanding, however, that the Senate language was omitted because the Department of the Interior is already interpreting the standard in existing law in the manner set forth in the Senate language. For that reason, the conferees decided that the language was unnecessary. Is that the case?

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank Senator Domenici for placing these explanations in the Record. Mr. President, before I yield back the remaining time, since I see there are no additional Senators waiting to speak, unless there are some who appear, I want to take a few minutes to thank committee staff for the excellent work that went into the development of this bill. We have had superb staff work here in the Senate on the Democratic side and the Republican side. I particularly want to single out the staff members on the Democratic side who have worked so hard, over many weeks, months, and even years in the development of this legislation. To the extent this work product is a step forward, it is a result of their hard work and their commitment, and clearly this is an accomplishment which could not have been achieved without that excellent work. Bob Simon is the staff director on the Democratic side. He has done a superb job. Sam Fowler is the chief counsel and also has done yeoman work. Vicky Thorne; Bill Wicker; Patty Beneke; Deborah Estes; Mike Connor; Jennifer Michael; Leon Lowery; Jonathan Black; Al Stayman; Scott Miller; David Brooks; Michael Carr; Sreela Nandi, who is an AAAS fellow sponsored by the American Chemical Society who works with our committee staff; Tara Billingsley, who is a Department of Energy detailee who worked with the committee in May and June of this year; Amanda Goldman; Mark Wilson; Jonathan Epstein, who is a fellow in my personal office who also worked hard on various aspects of this legislation; and James Dennis in my office, who worked on the tax provisions of the bill. In addition, I want to acknowledge the extremely capable staff on the Republican side, in particular Alex Flint, who was mentioned by Senator Domenici earlier, the staff director; Judy Pensabene, who is the chief counsel on the Republican side; and the other many staff members who I am sure will be recognized by Senator Domenici before action on this legislation is complete. Let me also acknowledge key House staff who worked so hard during this conference committee that we concluded: Mark Menezes, who is counsel for Chairman Joe Barton; Sue Sheridan and Bruce Harris, who are counsels for the ranking member on the House side, Congressman John Dingell. All of these individuals whom I named made a tremendous contribution to this legislation and all of them deserve our great thanks. No constructive work is done here in the Congress without this kind of excellent staff work and we are very fortunate in the case of this legislation. I am informed there are no other Senators wishing to speak at this point. I am also informed we will have additional time tomorrow for statements before any actual votes occur on or in relation to the conference report. I yield the floor at this time. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate the city of Alamogordo, NM, for doing an outstanding job in the All America City Award competition. Alamogordo finished in the top 30, which is a great achievement considering it was their first time in the competition. The National Civic League, NCL, focuses its efforts on strengthening and promoting community democracy by bringing together all sectors of society in addressing common needs. The All America City Award, sponsored by the NCL, recognizes that the basis of a healthy democratic society is cooperation and participation of private citizens, government, voluntary organizations and government. Those communities that foster an environment where citizens can express their needs and concerns and articulate challenges they face, and then bring together all of its resources to address those needs, exemplify democracy at work. These political systems respond to the needs of its citizens and in doing so, allow them to focus on their pursuit of their American dream. Alamogordo should take pride in the fact that they foster this environment in their community. As the Alamogordo All America City award application mentions, the community's efforts in three specific areas, water conservation, economic development and healthy youth, attest to the community's strength and spirit of cooperation. The success of Alamogordo's water conservation efforts is truly a model for the State, decreasing usage from 6.61 million gallons per day in 2000 to 4.82 million gallons per day in 2003, even while experiencing population growth. The community- wide efforts to develop the local economy, and create jobs have been a tremendous success, leading not only to new jobs, but to multiplier effects in healthcare, community charitable giving and education. The third area of focusing on healthy youth is exemplified in the skateboard park, which provides safe recreation alternatives for 12,600 kids each year. Further, the community of Alamogordo actively encourages basic and necessary democratic practices--encouraging citizens to take active roles in articulating and resolving community issues, encouraging effective and efficient local government, and harnessing local philanthropic and volunteer resources with the end goal of cooperating and building consensus, reinvigorating the community's vision for itself, facilitating intergroup relations, sharing information in the community, and inspiring community pride. The hard work and dedication of a handful of notable public servants who acted as delegates for the presentation, and contributed to this tremendous success include: Joan Griggs; Anne Romero; Gwen McCourt; Don and Rosemarie Carroll; Maureen Schmittle; Inez Moncada; Donald Cooper; Susan Flores; Sharon and Al Hodges; Kory Guerra; Phillip Flores; Peter Madrid; Tammie and Ana Reynolds; Elva Oesterreich; Forst Hibler; Laura and Austin Harris; Major John Bryan; Elizabeth Upton; Ed Carr; Sharon Masters; Flori and Raschal McElderry; Amanda Runnels; Shannon Flanagan; Penina Nunnelley; Tony Taylor; and Dr. Rodger and Judy Bates. I would also like to recognize other team members who were not able to make the trip to Atlanta, but whose hard, tireless work made the presentation possible. Finally, I congratulate each and every Alamogordo citizen on their efforts to build this model community, and for setting an example that we can all look to for inspiration. I appreciate their efforts in representing New Mexico on the on the national level as an example of civic pride and partnership in community improvement.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 8 minutes off the time on this side. I want to speak briefly about the CAFTA agreement. I start from the proposition that increased trade with the international community can advantage us, and it also can advantage those with whom we trade. Most of the trade of these countries that are covered by this CAFTA-DR agreement, most of their trade, over 70 percent of their trade, is, in fact, with the United States. It is very much in our interest that that circumstance remain the case. It can benefit us, and it can benefit these countries to see that trade increase. And it is very much in our interest, not only to strengthen our own country's economy but to see the economies of this region strengthened. This trade agreement comes at a time when our trade imbalance with the world is enormous. It is the largest in the history of our country. It is the largest in the history of any country in the world. Unfortunately, it is continuing to grow. As far as I can tell, our own Government has no strategy to deal with that problem. We have no strategy to promote investment in the United States. We have no strategy to promote the building of productive capacity or to keep this country competitive in the global economy. I hope very much that the Finance Committee, which I am privileged to serve on, can play a role in developing such a strategy over the next few months. When we had the markup of this legislation yesterday, I discussed that with Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus. It is my hope they will be able to schedule some hearings to begin understanding this issue better and helping us to craft a set of proposals to help deal with the very real problem we have in global trade. That being said, when I look at the provisions of this DR-CAFTA agreement, I do not see them contributing significantly to that trade imbalance. These are countries that have exported over 85 percent of what they send to the United States duty free. They have done that since the implementation of the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act in 2000, and before that they were shipping most of their product into the United States duty free under the Caribbean Basin Initiative. The main effect of this agreement we are now debating will be to phase out and eliminate tariffs that they currently impose upon our products that we are exporting to them. I don't see the basis for the claim, which I have heard on the Senate floor and from others around the country that this agreement will result in the further export of jobs from the United States to Central America. The reality is that U.S. companies have many options about where to build their next plant, where to manufacture the products that they sell. Central America has been one of those options for a very long time. There is nothing I know of pending here in the Congress that would change that circumstance. In my view, this agreement would not change that circumstance as well. I would hope and expect that if this agreement is implemented, as I expect it will be, we will see the encouragement of more investment in productive capacity in Central America, but at the same time, as our exports to that region increase, we will see more investment in productive capacity here in the United States. There are clearly some problems with this agreement. Many of those have been pointed out. I don't suggest I have answers for all of those, by any means. Two of the problems that have particularly concerned me are, No. 1, the serious lack of attention to the enforcement of worker rights in these countries and, secondly, the inadequate provision of assistance with regard to the negative impacts that U.S. exports of agricultural product into that region may cause. Let me talk first about enforcement of worker rights. I have urged the administration to commit resources to this as a priority. It is not reasonable to require U.S. producers and workers to compete with foreign producers who do not afford their workers certain basic rights. To begin addressing this issue, Ambassador Portman, our trade representative, has assured me the administration will propose and will support funding for worker rights enforcement to the extent of $40 million per year for fiscal years 2006 through 2009. Second, on monitoring of compliance with the various requirements on worker rights, there is a need for an independent and transparent monitoring of the treatment of workers in these countries. I have urged the administration to fund the International Labor Organization, or ILO, headquartered in Geneva, to conduct ongoing monitoring on worker rights in Central America. This would include reports that they would publish every 6 months beginning when the agreement goes into effect and continuing to the end of the 2009 fiscal year. The administration has agreed to commit $3 million per year to accomplish that task. That $3 million would come out of the $40 million per year in funding that they are otherwise committing for enforcement of worker and environmental rights. I believe both of these commitments--to worker rights enforcement and the commitment to ILO monitoring--should be a part of all trade agreements that we have with developing countries. In addition, of course, I hope that the actual commitment to workers' rights standards in the language of the treaties, in any future treaties we sign, will be stronger than we find in this agreement. I believe it is also incumbent upon us to urge the next administration, after President Bush leaves office, to continue with these same commitments in the future. The other issue I mentioned is agricultural assistance--adjustment assistance for those working in the agricultural sector. I have also urged the administration to commit resources to allow subsistence-level farmers to make a transition without undue dislocation problems. This should help reduce the problem of dislocation of workers in these countries and the additional illegal immigration to the United States that likely would result if that dislocation occurs. Again, the administration is committed to provide increased support to address this issue. The level of funding is not what I would like it to be, but if these countries do receive funding under the Millennium Challenge Corporation grants, those funding levels should increase substantially. Mr. President, each of these commitments that I have referred to are set out in a letter that Ambassador Portman has provided to me. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record following my comments.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, with these additional commitments, I have concluded that I can support the implementation of this trade agreement. I will do so when the roll is called later today. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 Executive Office of the President, the United States Trade Representative, Washington, DC, June 28, 2005. Hon. Jeff Bingaman, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Jeff, as the Congress considers the Central America- Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), you have raised concerns about ongoing efforts to improve enforcement of labor laws and to monitor progress in this regard in the CAFTA-DR signatory countries. As you know, Congress appropriated $20 million in FY05 specifically for projects to improve labor and environmental law enforcement in these countries. The recent House Appropriations Committee mark-up of the FY06 Foreign Operations appropriations bill increases this commitment for the next fiscal year, with $40 million earmarked for labor and environmental enforcement capacity- building in the CAFTA-DR signatory countries. The Administration is willing to support this level of funding in the FY06 Senate appropriations bill. Furthermore, because we are willing to make a longer-term commitment to improve labor and environmental law enforcement in the CAFTA-DR countries, the Administration is willing to propose and support this same level of labor/environment capacity-building assistance for the next three fiscal years, FY07 through FY09. More specifically, you have suggested the assistance of the International Labor Organization (ILO) in monitoring and verifying progress in the Central American and Dominican governments' efforts to improve labor law enforcement and working conditions. We are willing to implement your idea. Your proposal, as I understand it, is that the ILO would make a transparent public report of its findings every six months. The Administration has now consulted with the ILO and determined that this function would require additional funding to the ILO of approximately $3 million annually. The Administration is willing to devote approximately $3 million of the $20 million in FY05 labor enforcement assistance monies to support and fund this ILO monitoring initiative. To ensure that this monitoring continues, the Administration is willing to continue a funding commitment to ILO monitoring for the next three fiscal years, FY07 through FY09. The Administration also shares your goal of ensuring that we pair expanded trade opportunities with economic development assistance designed to ease the transition to free trade, especially for rural farmers in our CAFTA-DR partners. On June 13, 2005, the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) signed a $215 million compact with Honduras targeted specifically at rural development and infrastructure, and on the same day the MCC announced a $175 million compact with Nicaragua that will be signed shortly. As Secretary Rice and I have already communicated to you, we are willing to give high priority to negotiating compacts with El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic when those countries become eligible for MCC assistance under higher per capita income caps next year. I anticipate that such compacts would provide substantial U.S. economic assistance for rural development in these countries. In addition, the Administration has worked with the Inter- American Development Bank (IDB) to provide new assistance, including $10 million in new grants announced by the IDB earlier this month for rural development and institution building. I hope you will join me and officials from the IDB, World Bank, and other institutions next month for an international donors conference to discuss other ways we can direct development assistance toward meeting the needs of rural populations. To address your specific concern about the period before MCC compacts might be negotiated with El Salvador, Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic, the Administration is willing to support additional spending for rural development assistance of $10 million per year for each of those countries starting in FY07 for a total of five years, or until the signing of an MCC compact with such country, whichever comes first. This amounts to a $150 million commitment in transitional rural assistance for these countries over five years. These monies will provide transition assistance to rural farmers in these three countries for a defined period, while preserving a very strong incentive for candidate countries to meet the statutory criteria to receive what would likely be much higher levels of economic assistance under an MCC compact. Since the implementation of CAFTA-DR requires steps which reinforce the statutory criteria for funding under the MCC law, I believe that implementation of the agreement will assist these three countries to move quickly toward qualifying for a successful MCC compact with the United States. Furthermore, because many of the agreement's requirements for agriculture liberalization in the CAFTA-DR countries for sensitive commodities--such as dairy, poultry, and rice--will not fully occur until ten, fifteen, or even twenty years after CAFTA's implementation date, I am confident that this transitional mechanism provides ample time for adjustment in the rural economies of these nations. Sincerely, Rob Portman.