Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the landmark report Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General brought the hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million of the Nation's children and adolescents, twenty percent, have a diagnosable mental disorder, the most common of which include Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Depression. Unfortunately, only one out of five of those in need will receive mental health care. One of the primary reasons for this across the Nation is that mental health services to help treat children are in short supply. Long waiting lists for children seeking care, even those in crisis, are not uncommon. In New Mexico, it's estimated that 56,000 children and adolescents have a mental or emotional disorder. Of these, almost 20,000 have serious emotional disorders. As of June 2003, there were only 13 licensed child and adolescent psychiatrists to serve the entire State of New Mexico. In addition, there are fewer trained psychologists and social workers per 100,000 population in New Mexico than the country as a whole. Children with untreated mental disorders are at a higher risk for school failure and dropping out, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. A 2002 report documented that approximately one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers incarcerated because mental health care is not available. From January to December 2001, 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years just to wait for a mental health treatment opening. Clearly, something needs to be done to address this growing shortage of these important health professionals. The Surgeon General states that there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, or social workers. Nationwide, 3,543 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other professionals to serve children and adults. According to the U.S. Bureau of Health Professions, the demand for the services of child and adolescent psychiatrists is projected to increase by 100 percent by 2020, while the number of these professionals is expected to increase by only 30 percent resulting in a shortage of over 4,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists by that year. The National Center for Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education reports that the national average student-to-school counselor ratio in U.S. schools is 513:1, more than double the recommended ratio of 250:1. In the United States, there are approximately 7,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists and only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year. In 2000, the Bureau of Health Professions projected that between 1995 and 2020, the use of child and adolescent psychiatrists will increase by 100 percent. While the Nation as a whole is experiencing a shortage of mental health professionals, the problem is most acute in the rural areas. In NM for example, 4/5 of the psychiatrists in NM are located in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties. This area is also home to 70 percent of the psychologists, 53 percent of counselors and 47 percent of the social workers--leaving the rest of the State at a severe disadvantage. It is in response to the mental health workforce crisis that I rise with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, Senator Reed from Rhode Island and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, to offer The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. This bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It allows for an increase in the number of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program and, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from four years to six years. Finally, this bill asks the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals with respect to specialty certifications, practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice types, locations, education, and training, broken down by State so that we may better comprehend the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the landmark report Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General brought the hidden mental health crisis to the attention of the U.S. public. According to that report, 13.7 million of the Nation's children and adolescents, twenty percent, have a diagnosable mental disorder, the most common of which include Anxiety Disorder, Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Depression. Unfortunately, only one out of five of those in need will receive mental health care. One of the primary reasons for this across the Nation is that mental health services to help treat children are in short supply. Long waiting lists for children seeking care, even those in crisis, are not uncommon. In New Mexico, it's estimated that 56,000 children and adolescents have a mental or emotional disorder. Of these, almost 20,000 have serious emotional disorders. As of June 2003, there were only 13 licensed child and adolescent psychiatrists to serve the entire State of New Mexico. In addition, there are fewer trained psychologists and social workers per 100,000 population in New Mexico than the country as a whole. Children with untreated mental disorders are at a higher risk for school failure and dropping out, violence, drug abuse, suicide, and criminal activity. A 2002 report documented that approximately one in seven youth in New Mexico detention centers incarcerated because mental health care is not available. From January to December 2001, 718 New Mexico youth were collectively incarcerated for 31.3 years just to wait for a mental health treatment opening. Clearly, something needs to be done to address this growing shortage of these important health professionals. The Surgeon General states that there is a dearth of child psychiatrists, appropriately trained clinical child psychologists, or social workers. Nationwide, 3,543 urban, suburban, and rural localities have been designated Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas by the Federal Government due to their severe lack of psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers and other professionals to serve children and adults. According to the U.S. Bureau of Health Professions, the demand for the services of child and adolescent psychiatrists is projected to increase by 100 percent by 2020, while the number of these professionals is expected to increase by only 30 percent resulting in a shortage of over 4,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists by that year. The National Center for Education Statistics within the U.S. Department of Education reports that the national average student-to-school counselor ratio in U.S. schools is 513:1, more than double the recommended ratio of 250:1. In the United States, there are approximately 7,000 child and adolescent psychiatrists and only 300 new child and adolescent psychiatrists are trained each year. In 2000, the Bureau of Health Professions projected that between 1995 and 2020, the use of child and adolescent psychiatrists will increase by 100 percent. While the Nation as a whole is experiencing a shortage of mental health professionals, the problem is most acute in the rural areas. In NM for example, 4/5 of the psychiatrists in NM are located in Bernalillo and Santa Fe Counties. This area is also home to 70 percent of the psychologists, 53 percent of counselors and 47 percent of the social workers--leaving the rest of the State at a severe disadvantage. It is in response to the mental health workforce crisis that I rise with my colleagues Senator Collins of Maine, Senator Harkin of Iowa, Senator Dodd of Connecticut, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, Senator Reed from Rhode Island and Senator Sarbanes of Maryland, to offer The Child Healthcare Crisis Relief Act. This bill creates incentives to help recruit and retain child mental health professionals providing direct clinical care, and to improve, expand, or help create programs to train child mental health professionals. It provides loan repayment and scholarships for child mental health and school-based service professionals as well as internships and field placements in child mental health services and training for paraprofessionals who work in children's mental health clinical settings. This bill also provides grants to graduate schools to help develop and expand child and adolescent mental health programs. It allows for an increase in the number of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists permitted under the Medicare Graduate Medical Education Program and, extends the Board Eligibility period for residents and fellows from four years to six years. Finally, this bill asks the Secretary to prepare a report on the distribution and need for child mental health and school-based professionals with respect to specialty certifications, practice characteristics, professional licensure, practice types, locations, education, and training, broken down by State so that we may better comprehend the mental health workforce needs that are facing our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I first commend my colleague from Montana for his statement about Social Security and his leadership on that issue. He has been the leader in the Senate in trying to keep us focused on the real importance of maintaining Social Security and avoiding a privatized proposal, and I commend him for it. It is an honor for me to serve with him on the Finance Committee and follow his leadership on this issue. As we all know, Social Security and proposals to change Social Security are very much the priority today in Washington, and particularly this President. The President just yesterday, I believe, announced that he will take the next 2 months to do a 60-city tour or to at least have events in 60 cities to try to promote his suggestion or his proposal for privatizing Social Security. Of course, this is a decision he has made about how to use the political capital that he saw himself coming out of the last election with. Social Security is clearly an issue that deserves attention. There will be serious difficulties with Social Security. I believe 38 years from now, with current projections, the system will not be able to pay full benefits. I favor trying to find something that can be done to head that off. I do not believe the President's proposal is the right solution, and I have spoken out on that before. First Things First What I want to do today is speak very briefly on a couple of other issues that I believe are more urgent and more priority issues that we in the Congress should be addressing and that the President should be addressing. If we are looking to how to spend the next 60 days, let us focus on first things first. I remember reading a book Peter Drucker wrote many years ago called ``The Effective Executive.'' According to Peter Drucker, one of the attributes of an effective executive was that he or she would work on first things first. In my view, first things first today in our circumstance is not changing Social Security. First things first is dealing with our budget deficits and dealing with our trade deficits. Unfortunately, I believe we are failing to deal with either of those issues in a responsible way. First I will talk about the budget deficit. In 2004, we had a record deficit of $412 billion. That was a turnaround from the $128 billion surplus we had 4 years ago. In 2005, this year, the deficit is projected to grow to $427 billion, and clearly this is an unsustainable course. We need to look carefully at the decisions we are making in Washington and what those decisions will do with regard to this very large budget deficit. The first step in addressing the budget deficit is to make some tough choices in this year's budget. The process starts with the President's recently released proposal, and it will conclude with Congress's actions when we actually appropriate funds. I support the President's stated intention to cut the deficit in half by 2009, although it is also clear to me that we cannot do so if we adopt his proposed budget. The budget claims to get us to that goal, but, in fact, it falls short because it excludes so many large-ticket items. The budget does not include the real costs of going forward with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that cost will be roughly $383 billion over the next 10 years. The President has put in his budget an estimate for $81 billion. We are going to be passing a supplemental appropriation for $81 billion just for current operations in Iraq, to say nothing of the next 5 or 10 years of cost. The second item the President's budget does not include is anything for these so-called private accounts that the President wants to have us establish in Social Security. Again, the estimate in the President's budget is zero. The phased-in cost of the administration's Social Security plan during the first 10 years is projected at $754 billion, and over 20 years it is projected at $4.5 trillion. The Senator from Montana spoke about that issue. The third item the budget does not include is anything to deal with the alternative minimum tax. Taxpayers must pay the alternative minimum tax if they have too many deductions and credits and, therefore, otherwise are not paying a sufficient percent of their income in taxes. If we made the President's tax cuts permanent, we would go from roughly 3 million alternative minimum tax payers, which we had last year, to roughly 40 million alternative minimum tax payers at the end of the decade. That is a very expensive proposition. If the tax cuts are to be made permanent, reform of the alternative minimum tax is going to cost a very substantial amount of money: $774 billion is the 10-year cost of reforming the alternative minimum tax during the years 2006 to 2015. The failure to deal with the short-term cost of our defense budget and the proposal to make recent tax relief permanent is going to leave future generations with no options except to drastically raise taxes or to drastically cut services and benefits. Most of this should be avoidable, but first we need a realistic plan about how to move forward. It is clear that simply cutting discretionary spending accounts, as the President's budget proposes, is not the answer. To put this in context, the administration estimates that the deficit of 2005 is $425 billion. That is about the same as our entire nondefense discretionary spending for 2005. So you can eliminate all of these departments whose spending levels we are going to be arguing about here over the next several months: the Energy Department, Education Department, Transportation Department, Department of Commerce, Department of Homeland Security. You can eliminate the Department of Homeland Security and you still do not solve the problem of the deficit. No one is proposing to eliminate all of that, but I think it gives you a sense of the magnitude of the problem when you look at the fact that we cannot solve this problem strictly by cutting domestic discretionary spending. That is the point. As we all know, debt matters. There are three obvious reasons why debt matters. First, debt prevents us from dealing with the costs involved with the aging of our population. Second, we need to find other countries to lend us money as long as we are going to keep running this kind of enormous debt. We have a chart here that shows where we are getting the money we are borrowing every day, every week, every month. These are the top 10 countries that hold our national debt. Over 60 percent of our debt is purchased by foreign government banks. The top 10 countries are Japan, and we owe them $715 billion; China, $191 billion; United Kingdom, $152 billion; ``Caribbean banking centers,'' we owe $76 billion; South Korea, we owe $69 billion. This was as of November 2004, so all of those figures are now larger than this chart reflects. A third reason why debt matters is that high deficit levels will eventually result in higher interest rates. All of us know that higher interest rates depress economic activity, hurt consumers, and clearly it does not make sense for us to take action here to adopt budgets that have the ultimate effect of driving up interest rates. What we need is a real plan, one that can be supported by a majority of the Members of the Congress, one that can become law. We need a budget that is honest. We need to provide voters with clear choices, letting them know what the real impact of different options is. One of the areas we need to deal with honestly and not just to demagog is the issue of taxes. I believe there is sufficient bipartisan support to make permanent many of the tax provisions that are now scheduled to expire in 2010. For example, the marriage penalty relief, child tax credit, 10-percent income tax bracket--those are provisions that were adopted at the urging of President Bush which enjoy broad support here in the Congress and around the country. We should find a way to make that a permanent part of the tax package that we have earlier adopted. Even though the administration requested that we make all of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts permanent, I do not believe there are sufficient votes in the Senate to do that. There are not enough votes because there are enough Senators who realize we do not have the resources to do that. Overall, making all of the tax cuts permanent will put us an additional half trillion dollars in debt over the next 10 years. Here is the chart that shows what happens after 2010, if you go ahead and do what the President is urging and make all these tax cuts permanent. You can see essentially that 10-year cost, from 2006 to 2015, is $1.6 trillion. This is unsustainable. We need something responsible we can negotiate and on which we can arrive at a consensus. We need a real plan for dealing with our budget deficit. Let me say a few words also about the trade deficit. As we know, the trade deficit is the difference between what we sell to the rest of the world in goods and services and what they sell to us. On February 10, the Department of Commerce released the trade data for 2004. The trade deficit in 2004 was $617.7 billion. That is a new record for trade deficits for the United States. It is a new record for any country. There is no other country in the world that has ever had such a trade deficit. It was $121 billion more than the previous record of $496 billion we set in 2003. To emphasize the point a little more, it was a 24-percent increase in 1 year, in spite of 3 straight years of declines in the value of the dollar. Let me show a couple of charts here. This first one shows what has happened to trade deficits starting in 1992. It went up a little, then sort of leveled off during the mid-1990s, and then it started up again in 1998 and it has been going up ever since and there is no end in sight. I believe this is a major problem. Let me give you the reasons why. If you look at historical context, in the mid-1980s the Reagan administration found itself in a similar circumstance. This is a more complicated chart, but what it tries to do is show the trade deficit, which is this red line, and also show the value of the dollar compared to other currencies. The trade deficit started up in the mid-1980s, in the Reagan administration. It was a concern then. The Reagan administration was not known for its policies of Government intervention, but the Secretary of the Treasury then understood that something had to be done to deal with this growing trade deficit. The result was the 1985 Plaza Accord, which bound the governments of the then G-7 countries to pursue specific actions related to currency valuations, market access, deregulation, deficit spending, and workforce investment. And the deficit, the trade deficit, came down. The value of the dollar came down relative to other currencies and the trade deficit came down. What we have now, and this chart makes the point very emphatically, is the value of the dollar went up and in the last 3 years it has been coming down, but the trade deficit continues to go up. This is an unsustainable situation, just as the budget deficit is an unsustainable situation. This affects people throughout the country in very obvious ways. This chart shows the trade deficit. Again, the red line is going up as compared to manufacturing exports, which have been going down in the last 4 or 5 years. So you have people losing their jobs. You have U.S. companies finding it impossible to export. Accordingly, we have a very serious issue with decline in manufacturing jobs in the United States. It is a long-term decline. It seems to continue unabated. While the trade deficit continues to grow, manufacturing jobs continue to drop. These charts speak to a very significant problem I believe needs attention. Let me suggest four concrete actions we could take to address the trade deficit. First, we need to recognize the importance of research and technology development in our own country. Across the board, we need to have targeted investments in critical emerging technologies. We need to see to it that we remain on the cutting edge of new technologies. Unfortunately the administration's budget actually decreases support for science and technology and engineering research and development. In my view, that is moving us in the exact wrong direction. This chart shows the budgets, proposed budgets the administration has given us for all of these agencies that are very involved in science and technology. You can see, with the exception of one agency, NASA, everyone else is slated for a cut. That is moving us in the wrong direction. A second step we can take is to actually step up and begin enforcing our trade agreements in a meaningful way. I think we have assumed that other countries will play by the rules, and the more trade agreements we could enter into, the better off we will be. That has not proven to be the case. The administration has done little to make many of these countries abide by their agreements. China is the most salient example. We have a $162 billion trade deficit with that country today. It is up 31 percent from 2004 over 2003. We have lost well over a million jobs to China in the last decade or 15 years. China continues to manipulate the value of its currency, continues to subsidize its exports. I believe it is time the administration insists on better treatment. It needs to start by pressing the Chinese to revalue their currency. We have a circumstance now where everything the Chinese send to us is artificially undervalued and everything we send to them is artificially overvalued, and that hurts us badly. The third suggestion I have is we need to improve our education and workforce training systems. There is no question we need to have people who can fill these jobs if we are going to hope to attract and retain these jobs. Again, I point to the President's budget and say that it is wrongheaded in the extreme in this regard. The administration proposes elimination of these 48 educational programs. I am not suggesting all of those are meritorious, but many of them are, and many of them are helping local school districts and States to improve their education system. I think there are many things that can be done. I have various recommendations of bills to try to help. I hope we can seriously push back against the administration on these proposed cuts in education and training, job training funds. The final point I would suggest is the final concrete action we can take to deal with the trade deficit is to encourage foreign firms to contribute to the U.S. economy, to come here and establish here and create jobs here to a much greater extent than we have in the past. What we need is a national strategy to do the very same thing our States are doing and our local communities are doing, and that is they are working hard to attract business and to create jobs. We need an aggressive effort on the national level to do the same. We need a concerted effort to market the United States to other countries as a place to do business, a good place to do business. I am working on legislation that I will introduce soon that would increase the U.S. Government's efforts in this regard to establish a very visible, assertive entity where the primary mission would be to promote increased foreign investment in the United States. Once we take these steps, the four I have outlined, then we at least would have some strategy in place to increase domestic investment and to draw foreign investment to our country to a greater extent. Maybe those actions could help shrink the trade deficit. We should be working on our highest priority problems, our most urgent problems. It is my firm belief that the budget deficit and the trade deficit are those problems. Let me finish by saying we should not allow politics as usual to prevail in this 109th Congress. The decline in the value of the dollar and the decisions that we have seen in recent weeks by foreign banks to begin shifting their reserves from dollars to other currencies, those are our signals that financial markets want responsible action by this Government to deal with these two problems, the budget deficit and the trade deficit. I ask unanimous consent an editorial from earlier this week in the Washington Post be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, that editorial makes the point that these issues deserve attention, and we cannot postpone action on these issues indefinitely. We in Congress and the administration need to get the message that foreign governments and foreign banks are sending to us. We need to face up to the challenge. We need to begin addressing the budget deficit and the trade deficit as first priority issues, and not push them off while we continue to deal with other matters. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Washington Post, Mar. 1, 2005] Dollar Jitters Last week brought a warning to economic policymakers on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A rumor that South Korea's central bank had decided to shift its reserves away from dollars triggered a sharp fall in the greenback and a retreat on Wall Street. The fact that the South Koreans later denied this rumor is only half- comforting. Economic logic is pushing Asia's central banks to quit propping up the dollar. If a hollow rumor can rattle the currency, what would a real policy change do? The dollar's vulnerability reflects the nation's trade deficit. To sustain their appetite for foreign goods, Americans need to convert their dollars into other currencies, depressing the greenback's value. This didn't stop the dollar from being strong in the 1990s, because the trade deficit was smaller then and because foreign investors were hungry for American stocks, bonds and other assets, reflecting the U.S. economy's eviable performance. But now foreign investors' appetite for dollars lags behind Americans' demand for foreign goods and services. The gap is being filled by Asian governments, whose central banks have accumulated vast piles of U.S. bonds in an attempt to slow the dollar's slide. A year or so ago, a fashionable theory held that this Asian government support could continue indefinitely. Asian policymakers, according to this theory, would prop up the dollar to keep their own currencies competitive. It's true that export-led growth is a quasi-religion in East Asia and that China's dictators fear their grip on power might falter if they can't keep growth and job creation humming. But China and its neighbors have proved themselves capable of fast growth even in periods when they haven't been artificially depressing their own currencies. So it seems dangerous to bet that Asian central banks will think it worth the risk of holding ever-expanding dollar portfolios that can falter on a rumor. The other optimistic theory is that while Asians may not want to prop up the dollar, they are prisoners of their own policy. By now they've bought so many dollars that if they quit buying, the value of their existing reserves would tank. But what if one central bank worries that others will stop buying dollars first? Such fears could trigger a stampede for the exit. None of this is to say that a dollar crash is inevitable. The dollar may fall gently, as it has over the past year or so, or a renewed appetite for U.S. assets among private investors could even stabilize its value. But the risk of a currency crash grows every day. In 2003, the United States had to attract $530 billion of foreign capital to finance its purchases of foreign stuff; in 2004 it had to attract $650 billion; this year, it may have to pull in as much as $800 billion. Every year of vast borrowing increases borrowing in later years; as Brad Setser of Oxford University notes, just paying interest on the $800 billion borrowed in 2005 might add $40 billion to the overall 2006 deficit. To stabilize this house of cards, Congress and the administration should pull the one lever they have: They should reduce the nation's reliance on foreign capital by cutting government borrowing. This isn't going to be possible through spending cuts alone. It's going to take higher taxes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005. A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a global competition underway for dominance in science and technology, and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic competitiveness depends on reversing this trend. We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and critical for our economic and national security. Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S. competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists, engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and threaten our long-term economic security. The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue. A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and scientific collaboration. Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts focused on those that seek to do us harm. Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's laboratories and universities. Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange. The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of 2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28 percent from the same time in 2003. In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration. One such example is Australia, which has increased international student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the world. Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a long-standing record of producing the best trained and most innovative scientists and engineers, and we must not concede our leadership in this area. It is also important to note that international students play an important economic role--the Institute of International Education recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy. In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States; reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department develop interoperable data systems. Openness to international students and scientist is an important aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy, and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today, along with Senator Coleman, to introduce the American Competitiveness Through International Openness Now (``ACTION'') Act of 2005. A few days ago, I came to the Senate floor to discuss the importance of the United States taking steps to ensure that we remain the world leader in terms of scientific research and innovation. There is a global competition underway for dominance in science and technology, and I remain concerned that the federal resources we are allocating for research and development are completely insufficient. At a time when other countries are investing more in R & D, we are cutting back Federal support of key science programs. Our Nation's economic competitiveness depends on reversing this trend. We must also do all we can to continue to develop a highly skilled domestic workforce. It is paramount that we improve math and science education in our school systems, and spend more on graduate education in science and engineering. Maintaining the world's best education system is essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and critical for our economic and national security. Another area that we must also address in order to ensure U.S. competitiveness in the world economy is visa processing for scientists, engineers, and students wishing to come to the United States. Red tape and delays, although improving, still plague our overseas embassies and threaten our long-term economic security. The ACTION Act of 2005 would address this important issue. A country's immigration system helps determines its relationship to the global marketplace. The system can either be conducive to the free flow of ideas, scientists, and international business ventures, or it can provide disincentives to the flow of international talent and scientific collaboration. Since September 11, the United States has adopted a number of visa policies aimed at making the United States and the traveling public more secure. Unfortunately, those policies have also had a significant impact on scientific collaboration with other countries and have made it problematic for exchange students to come to the United States with the ease they once enjoyed. While the United States has an obligation to thoroughly vet visa applicants, we need to find ways to do so that keep us engaged with the rest of the world and keep our efforts focused on those that seek to do us harm. Our international economic competitors are taking proactive steps to encourage highly talented students and graduates to come to their countries and study in their universities. In contrast, the attitude that the United States seems to be projecting to highly talented foreign scientists and students is one of complacency. This not only damages our image abroad, but also hampers research in the nation's laboratories and universities. Recent studies from the National Science Foundation and the Council of Graduate Schools, as well as State Department statistics, have documented a sharp decline in the foreign students seeking advanced scientific and technical degrees in graduate schools across the United States. The National Science Foundation has found that the combination of an overly restrictive U.S. policy towards issuing visas, the growing perception that the United States is hostile to foreigners, and the increase in opportunities overseas has significantly challenged our ability to attract the best and brightest from around the world to come to the U.S. to study and engage in open scientific exchange. The 2003-2004 academic year marked the first absolute decline in foreign student enrollments since the early 1970's. And in the fall of 2004, international student applications to graduate schools dropped 28 percent from the same time in 2003. In contrast, other countries have instituted aggressive strategies for attracting students, scholars, and scientists and have sought to encourage access to universities and promote scientific collaboration. One such example is Australia, which has increased international student enrollment 53 percent since 2001. The European Union has also set forth a comprehensive strategy to be the ``most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world'' by 2010. A key part of this strategy is aimed at making the E.U. the most favorable destination for students, scholars, and researchers from around the world. Our university system is the envy of the world, and where we have a long-standing record of producing the best trained and most innovative scientists and engineers, and we must not concede our leadership in this area. It is also important to note that international students play an important economic role--the Institute of International Education recently determined that through tuition and living expenses, foreign students contribute roughly $13 billion to the U.S. economy. In particular, the ACTION Act of 2005 would help keep international students and scientist coming to the United States to participate in essential research and exchange programs by: improving visa processing in a manner consistent with national security; requiring the President to develop a strategic plan to enhance the recruitment and access of students, scholars, and scientist coming to the United States; reforming the SEVIS system, which tracks students, to allow approved schools to make corrections to a student's record to correct database errors; and by facilitating that the FBI and the State Department develop interoperable data systems. Openness to international students and scientist is an important aspect of maintaining American competitiveness in the world economy, and I ask my fellow colleagues to join me in supporting this essential bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, today marks the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Following President Bush's decision to opt out of ratification of that treaty, enforcement of the Protocol fell onto Russian shoulders and was finally ratified by the Russian Federation late last year. Today it is a legally binding treaty. The basic climate change problem is well understood. We have been told repeatedly in peer reviewed scientific assessments that increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases will lead to an increase in the average global temperature. The increasing temperature of the earth will lead to a large number of important changes to today's climate system. Through past emissions and projected emissions over coming years and decades we expect that the warming will accelerate unless the world alters its emissions path. Indications of warming are already evident in the global temperature record. Last year was the fourth- warmest year since temperature measurements began in the 19th century. The warmest year on record was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003. Indications are also evident in the vast changes now underway in the Arctic and the bleaching of coral reefs around the world. Over the years there have been many who have been skeptical of the science that has informed us of the climate change problem. But the mainstream of the scientific community, as evidenced by panels organized through the National Academy of Sciences, has been quite consistent in their views. Our doubling of the pre-industrial level of carbon dioxide has been a major factor in increased global average temperatures. If human-induced global warming continues on its present path, the changes to our way of life could be vast. We know this from looking at climates of the past as well as projections made by scientific models. There would be significant changes in water resources, because precipitation patterns will change. The sea level will increase because the oceans will warm and will expand. The ice sheets of Greenland and parts of Antarctica could disintegrate, further adding to long-term sea level rise. A warming of the earth will place major ecological systems at risk, including many of our forests and coral reefs. We are essentially performing a global experiment with our planet, with increasing risk to the future. A prudent course of action would be to take steps now to lower these risks, while we continue to improve our understanding of the implications of the warming of our planet. The desirability of taking prudent steps now, on a national and international basis, to stem global warming is further highlighted by other developments. Across the United States, an increasing number of individual States are taking policy steps related to global warming. California and New York are moving forward with innovative programs to do their part in minimizing emissions. Add into the mix States like Pennsylvania, Colorado, Texas, Minnesota and others and you can see that a patchwork quilt of climate policies is being formed across the United States. While States can be a great laboratory of ideas, the developing situation really calls out for Federal leadership to get to a more coordinated and rational approach across the country. The business community is looking for federal leadership as well. At a recent hearing before the Energy Committee, an industry economist called climate change a ``wild card'' that could shape energy markets and governance worldwide. He testified that it would be ``prudent to take preparatory steps'' to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. He is not alone. Many U.S.-based multinational corporations are looking to the Federal Government for help as they seek to comply with the EU emissions trading scheme. More than 12,000 factories and power plants in Europe are subject to emissions caps, affecting many U.S. multinationals with operations in Europe. I applaud the hard work that has been done by many of my colleagues on the issue of global warming. In past Congresses, we have seen productive work both in terms of discrete bills, such as that by Senators McCain and Lieberman or the abrupt climate change bill by Senator Collins, or as part of large legislation, such as the bipartisan climate change titles in past comprehensive energy bills. It is clear that most Members of the Senate understand the importance of global warming. I hope that we will continue to work together this Congress on a path toward sensible climate legislation. For my part, as the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, I hope that we can find a way to continue to integrate global warming concerns in energy legislation. Energy legislation is an appropriate place to deal with global warming. I have said many times that climate change is so closely related to energy policy because the two most prominent greenhouse gases--that is, carbon dioxide and methane--are largely released due to energy production and use. To a large extent, to do energy legislation is to do climate legislation and vice versa. As we consider climate in an energy context, I would like to lay out three principles that I stand for and that I think are important. I think that these principles are both modest and aimed at providing more certainty to decisions that need to be made by the many actors who are part of our national energy picture. The first principle is to have a sensible plan to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide. I am very impressed with the recent proposal by the bipartisan National Commission on Energy Policy in this regard. They have presented a well-thought out plan to create a mandatory emission trading scheme that protects the economy and provides the essential framework for certainty. Industry needs the certainty of a program that will help them make investment decisions for the future without causing them to prematurely retire capital stock. For example, I would bring to the Senate's attention the recent report of the Cinergy Corporation and their detailed analysis of the implications of potential greenhouse gas regulations. They conclude that neither their company, nor their region, nor this country would be endangered in the face of a modest greenhouse gas emissions policy that includes a safety valve to protect against shocks to the economy. This approach has been championed by well known economists such as Glenn Hubbard and Joseph Stiglitz, as well as institutions such as Resources for the Future, the Climate Policy Center and the Washington Post. Protecting our economy will not come from ignoring the situation. Lack of attention is as detrimental as legislation that is too aggressive. The Energy Commission's proposal is the right mix of modesty and certainty. The second principle is to couple any emission reduction plan with robust technology research and development and a broader energy package that addresses energy supply from nuclear power, renewable energy, natural gas, IGCC, and other sources. We need our approach to research and development to be strategic in the sense of creating new options for dealing with greenhouse gases in an economic way. The third and final principle I wanted to mention is the need to enact policies that affect emissions trends in developing countries, at the same time that we try to deal with emissions trends here. EIA has projected that we will soon be overtaken by the developing countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, these developing countries are not required by the Kyoto Protocol to reduce emissions. This has been a key point for opponents of the Protocol who are worried about losing competitive advantage to countries with weak environmental standards. In terms of the long-term resolution of this issue and the competitiveness of the U.S. economy, it is essential that the United States and developing countries coordinate action. One way to do this is to link progress in the United States to policies overseas. Here again I point to the Energy Commission proposal that links progress on American action to what is done by the international community. Climate change is important to the international community. It is important to Prime Minister Blair and the other members of the G-8 who will be meeting later this year. And, finally, it is important to all Americans. I intend to propose some sensible climate legislation at an appropriate point that is consistent with the principles I have laid out here. I hope we can address elements of it in energy legislation as it moves forward through Congress. We need to find a way to move forward, and I believe we can before this Congress concludes. I ask unanimous consent that several items be printed in the Record: First, an editorial out of the Washington Post entitled ``A Warming Climate''; second, a letter from Glenn Hubbard, professor, Columbia University, and Joseph Stiglitz, professor, Columbia University to John McCain and Joseph Lieberman; third, a summary of the Report to Stakeholders on air issues that has been developed by Cinergy Corporation; and finally, a summary of recommendations of the National Commission on Energy Policy entitled Ending the Energy Stalemate.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her courtesy, and my colleague from Michigan. Science and Technology In The President's Budget Mr. President, I rise as in morning business to speak about the budget that has been submitted by the President, and particularly to speak about the science and technology portions of the budget, the portions of the budget that are intended to support science and technology in this country. In his recent State of the Union Message, President Bush said: By making our economy more flexible, more innovative, and more competitive, we will keep America the economic leader of the world. I agree with the President that strong economic growth is vital to continued American leadership. I also believe innovation is the key to that growth. But the reality of his proposed budget to spur innovation for the next year does not square with the rhetoric we heard last week. I fear this budget will do serious harm to our Nation's scientific and technological capacity. And because it shortchanges our children and threatens to deprive them of the prosperous America we have enjoyed, the shame will be on us if we allow it to be enacted as it has been presented to us. We are about to embark on an intense debate about the priorities of the Nation. This debate is all about the Nation's future growth and prosperity, and that, in turn, is about our Nation's investment in the foundations of discovery and innovation. What will not be in dispute in this several month long debate is that science, and the technology that flows from it, is recognized as the principal engine of our economic growth. Nor will there be any contention about the fact that America's present strength, prosperity, and global preeminence depend upon the fundamental research we do in this country. The scientific and economic record of the past 50 years is overwhelming proof on both of those points. Regrettably, knowing full well that economic growth is the prerequisite for opportunity, and that scientific research is a basic prerequisite for growth, this budget blueprint for the next fiscal year falls far short of meeting our long-term national goals. It is unsuited to the challenges of our time, it is built on short-term political calculations and it weakens one of the pillars of our country's future economic health. It is not a clearly thought out strategy to ensure the preeminence of the U.S. scientific enterprise. The budget proposes much larger cuts in domestic discretionary research and development programs than is generally understood. The less than straightforward numbers of the Office of Management and Budget have the effect of obscuring the true impact of the cuts that are proposed. Moreover, once one gets past 2006, the proposed budgets in the outyears for domestic discretionary programs throughout the Government would be cut below the 2004 and 2005 levels, even before inflation is taken into account. Many of these research and development programs that are being curtailed or cut back have provided the cornerstone for our recent economic progress and have spurred the creation of high-paying jobs and record prosperity. Basic research is the primary source of the new knowledge that ultimately drives the innovation process. The Federal Government supports a majority of the Nation's basic research, and the Federal Government supports nearly 60 percent of the research and development performed at U.S. universities. Equally important, federally funded research and development at universities and colleges plays a key role in educating the next generation of scientists and engineers and providing a technically skilled workforce. So scientific investments have never been more important to our Nation's future. And never have we stood on the verge of so many stunning advances in technology and science. Cutting back now would be like cutting back our defense budget at the height of the Cold War. Increases are disproportionately concentrated primarily in two Departments--Defense and Homeland Security--while other research and development funding agencies are left with very modest increases or with increases for some agencies that are offset by flat funding or cuts in other agencies. In the name of national security, we are building a swaying tower of insecurity with regard to our long-term future. In order to make room for huge tax cuts and to address the record budget deficits they have helped to create, the administration now proposes major cuts in the research our country depends on to maintain its technical leadership and ensure that Americans continue to enjoy growing prosperity and high-paying jobs. The budget distinguishes between Federal R&D spending and Federal spending for ``Federal science and technology.'' The Federal science and technology designation, recommended by the National Academy of Scientists, is intended to highlight ``activities central to the creation of new knowledge and technologies more consistently and accurately than the traditional R&D data.'' It includes the full budgets for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, the Defense 6.1 and 6.2 research programs, the various Energy Department R&D programs, and a variety of research efforts at other agencies. Overall, this Federal science and technology designation encompasses nearly all of Federal basic research, more than 80 percent of Federal applied research, and about half of civilian development. It does not include defense development, testing, and evaluation. The overall Federal science and technology budget suffers a 3-percent decrease in real buying power under the proposal we have received. Businesses have always looked to the Federal Government to support the lion's share of basic research that has led to business successes in modern aircraft and computing and in many other areas. For Federal science and technology, the President's budget proposes a reduction of $877 million, to $60.2 billion. Among other things, it provides a death sentence for the Advanced Technology Program, and it slashes funding for kindergarten through twelfth grade science and math education. President Bush's proposed 2006 budget flat-lines or cuts funding for key Federal medical and health research agencies. Today's miracles of modern medicine are the result of past research in physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering, most of which was carried out in universities by faculty and student researchers and supported by the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy, and several defense agencies. The National Science Foundation, in this proposed budget, is woefully underfunded. Two years ago the President signed a bill authorizing the doubling of the budget of the National Science Foundation, the premier agency supporting basic research in all fields of science and engineering in the Nation's outstanding universities, and tasked with promoting investments in science, math, and engineering education. The administration's request next year for the NSF is $2.91 billion or 34 percent below the fiscal year 2006 level that was authorized in the bill signed by the President. Adjusted for inflation, the real purchasing power of NSF actually declines in next year's budget. The National Science Foundation education programs continue to be devastated. They are down another 24 percent from last year's level. If the administration believes in closing the gap in science and math performance between our students and the rest of the world, how is that possible when proposing major cuts in science and math education programs? The National Institutes of Health, the Nation's principal source of funding for the treatment of cancer, AIDS, diabetes, and Alzheimer's, would decline 1.4 percent in constant dollars. The number of research project grants funded by the NIH in fiscal year 2006 would drop. This proposal, if enacted, will be the worst NIH budget since 1970. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, critical in preparing us for potential epidemics from possibly devastating new infectious diseases and biological terror, is proposed to be cut by 9 percent in constant dollars, while the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality would be flat funded at $319 million. At the Department of Energy, the Federal science and technology budget would drop by $278 million or 5 percent. The science programs in the Department of Energy that support much of the Nation's premier work in physics and material sciences are cut 6 percent in real spending. While the President's rhetoric during the State of the Union supported renewable energy sources and energy efficiency, the budget does not. Renewable energy research is cut 9 percent in constant dollars. Energy efficiency is cut 5 percent. All other energy programs--nuclear, fossil fuel, transmission, and distribution--are proposed for a decline of 9 percent. The administration is also undercutting efforts to support a technology-driven economy by slashing the budgets for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The fiscal year 2006 request is 24 percent less than the fiscal year 2005 appropriated level of $708 million. The request eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, including $43 million of funding for ongoing projects that companies are relying on and planning to complete. The Advanced Technology Program is an industry-led, competitive, cost-share program that allows U.S. companies to develop the next generation of breakthrough technologies. It enables them to compete aggressively against foreign rivals. According to its 2004 annual report, returns from just 41 of the 736 ATP projects have exceeded $17 billion in economic benefits, more than eight times the amount of money spent for all of the 736 projects. The National Academy of Sciences has found ATP to be an effective program that could use more funding and use it wisely. Buried within the Department of Defense budget are cuts to investments in science and technology that will substantially undermine our warfighting capabilities 10 to 15 years from now. Defense research, both basic and applied, are starved and, when inflation is factored in, we will end up buying less research than we did before. The Federal science and technology budget at the Department of Defense would drop by $905 million or 14 percent. For decades possession of superior technology has been the cornerstone of U.S. military strategy. Maintaining this technological edge has become even more important as our military faces new and formidable dangers to countering chemical, biological, nuclear, and high explosive threats and attacks. This budget makes a grave mistake in saying that America's greatest military assets are no longer our greatest research universities. Overall, the Federal budget for science and technology would decline by over 3 percent and would decline by 4 percent in the absence of the requested increase for manned spaceflight. I have a chart that sums up all of these figures I have gone through and points out that at every agency of the Government, every department except NASA, we are seeing cuts proposed for basic research, science, and technology in this budget that has been presented. Given the fierce competition that U.S. businesses face from China and India and other nations, even in high technology products, this is a particularly dangerous time for America to be cutting back on support for innovation. Many of our senior industry, military, and academic leaders are expressing alarm that real Federal spending in basic research has stalled. They worry whether we are starting to lose our edge in basic scientific research. They wonder if we are losing sight of the importance of long-term investments in creating the conditions of prosperity. Their fear is that the administration's other priorities, combined with the enormous deficits we face, will squeeze out these productivity-enhancing investments. They are concerned that funding for Federal nondefense basic science and technology programs will continue to stagnate or decline. And if we allow such an erosion of America's ability to innovate, they warn, then be prepared for the wrenching, turbulent social and economic change that surely will follow. There are many powerful arguments for expanding the basic research agenda in this country, even in these difficult economic times. I hope the President and this Congress will step up to the task of rethinking and realigning our budget proposals to reflect the importance of our investments in science and technology. The greatest tragedies, of course, will be the missed opportunities. How many excellent research proposals will be left on the National Science Foundation's cutting room floor, how many fewer students with fewer National Institutes of Health grants will be pursuing research careers, how many advances in conquering disease will be slowed, and how many new lifesaving technologies will be delayed in reaching our warfighters? This failure of intellectual leadership could not come at a worse time. Now is precisely when we need enlightened national leaders who fully understand the value of basic research in science and technology. High- tech R&D is so enmeshed in our economy that it is part and parcel of the jobs and growth issue. The issue of outsourcing high-tech, high-wage jobs--reverse brain- drain--has moved front and center to our economic worries. American workers, facing rising economic insecurity, are filled with anxiety and unease because they realize that almost any service that can be delivered in bits and bytes and does not require face-to-face interaction with customers is up for grabs. We are on the brink of a new industrial and commercial world order. The successful competitors in the increasingly fierce global scramble for supremacy will not be those who simply make products faster and cheaper than anyone else. The big winners will be those who develop talent, techniques, and tools so advanced that there is no competition. That means the United States must secure unquestioned superiority in nanotechnology, biotechnology and information technology. And that means upgrading and protecting the investments that have given us our present national stature and our unsurpassed standard of living. Coming to grips with this issue is important if we wish to remain at the epicenter for the ongoing revolution in research and innovation that is driving 21st century economies all over the world. The reality is that in this 21st century global economy, China, India, and other nations which were once considered economic backwaters have discovered how to build strong economies around sophisticated technology. We should be concerned about our competitive position relative to our global rivals' investments in research and development. While we are limiting our budget increases in the civilian arena, other countries' investments are moving up very substantially. In the European Union, the United Kingdom is planning on boosting its R&D spending to 2.5 percent of its gross domestic product. The French are aiming at investing 3 percent of their budget in research and development. Spain announced an ambitious plan to lift R&D funding by 25 percent between now and 2008, while excluding military spending from the equation. On the Pacific Rim, China is doubling the proportion of GDP it spent in the last decade on R&D, India is raising its funding of science agencies by 27 percent, and Japan is increasing its investments in life sciences research by 32 percent, while South Korea is upgrading research spending by 8.5 percent. They are resolved to reach technological parity with the West. What do we do about these international challenges? We have absolutely no choice but to emphasize what we do best in this coming rivalry. Our most important strength has always been innovation. Our can-do spirit of commercializing technological innovation has always heen America's core competence. We do it far better than anyone else. But faced with these other potential innovators on the global scene, we must start doing it even better. As our Federal R&D commitments shrink, so too does the pool of technically trained talent, forcing industry and academia to look abroad for skilled knowledge workers. Education and training of scientists and engineers are tied to Federally sponsored research performed in the Nation's laboratories and universities. The best course is to increase Government funding for basic research and to spend more on graduate education in science and engineering, not to spend less in these important areas, which the President has proposed. I hope those involved with the Appropriations Subcommittee will focus on this in their deliberations this spring. America has always been a Nation built on hope--hope that we can build a prosperous, healthy world for ourselves and for our children. But it is clear that these long-standing American aspirations depend critically on our far-sighted investment in science and technology which lies at the center of this hope. Leadership in science and engineering and the world's best education and training system are essential for ensuring Americans well-paying jobs and essential for our security. When J. Robert Oppenheimer, the renowned physicist, warned President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1943, about Germany's plan to build an atomic weapon, FDR replied in a secret letter that ``whatever the enemy may be planning, American science will be equal to the challenge.'' Never has a prediction been so prescient. We know with every fiber of our being that the dominance of our fundamental research enterprise is a core American strength that must be preserved--and we must not let our position erode and compromise our future economic and national security. By sustaining our investments in basic research, we can ensure that America remains at the forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing our ability to shape and improve our Nation's and the world's future. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Smith, a fellow in my office, be granted floor privileges for the rest of the afternoon.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors. According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin. Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age. Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States, HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher. According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students. The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with. Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs. In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access. Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction. In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income. This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI. To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality. Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution. Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the next generation of Hispanic Serving Institutions legislation. This legislation is critical if we, as a Nation, are going to continue to compete in a global economy. Education is the key to building a strong and dynamic economy, and therefore, it is our obligation to ensure quality educational opportunities for all Americans. That is why I am introducing, along with my colleague Senator Hutchison, the Next Generation Hispanic Serving Institutions Act of 2005. This legislation is supported by the Hispanic Education Coalition, an ad hoc coalition of national organizations dedicated to improving educational opportunities for more than 40 million Hispanics living in the United States, including groups like National Council of La Raza, HACU, and MALDEF. Senators Bill Nelson and Clinton have joined in this effort as cosponsors. According to Census Bureau data, Hispanic population in the United States grew by 25.7 million between 1970 and 2000 and continues to grow at a very brisk pace. The most recent census data puts the Hispanic population at over 40 million, representing approximately 14 percent of the U.S. population and making it the Nation's largest minority group. Estimates project that the Hispanic population will grow by 25 million between 2000 and 2020. By the year 2050, 1 in 4 Americans will be of Hispanic origin. Currently, Hispanics make up about 13 percent of the U.S. labor force. While the overall labor force is projected to slow down over the next decades as an increasing number of workers reach retirement age, the Hispanic labor force is expected to continue growing at a fast pace. It will expand by nearly 10 million workers between now and 2020, through a combination of immigration and native-born youth reaching working age. Our Nation's economic and social success rests, in large part, on the level of skills and knowledge attained by our Hispanic population. I was one of the authors and lead supporters of the original Hispanic Serving Institutions proposal when it was enacted as part of the Higher Education Act in 1992 in order to increase educational opportunities for Hispanic students. Since then, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, HSIs, have made significant strides in increasing the number of Hispanic students enrolling in and graduating from college. Although Hispanic- serving institutions account for only 5 percent of all institutions of higher education in the United States, HSIs enroll over half, 51 percent, of all Hispanics pursuing higher education degrees in the 50 States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. While Hispanic high school graduates go on to college at higher rates than they did even ten years ago, Hispanics still lag behind their non- Hispanic peers in postsecondary school enrollment. In 2000, only 21.7 percent of all Hispanics ages 18 through 24 were enrolled in postsecondary degree-granting institutions in the United States. We must take HSIs to the next level. While the percentage of Hispanics attending college has increased significantly over the past few years, Hispanic students are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges, and are much less likely to finish college than their non- Hispanic peers. In 2001, only slightly more than 1 in 10 Hispanics ages 25 years and over had received a bachelor's degree or higher. According to the Department of Education, in 2000, Hispanics only earned 6 percent of all bachelor's degrees awarded, 4 percent of all master's degrees, and only 3 percent of all doctorates. But the pace of bachelor's degrees or higher earned by Hispanics is accelerating rapidly, according to the Department of Education. Therefore, we must keep pace. We must increase the capacity of our institutions of higher education to serve the increasing number of Hispanic students. The Next Generation HSI bill does just that. Simply, this legislation will improve educational opportunities for Hispanic students by establishing a competitive grant program to expand post-baccalaureate degree opportunities at HSIs, and by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome administrative requirements HSIs must contend with. Current law only provides support for 2-year and 4-year Hispanic Serving Institutions. This legislation will support graduate fellowships and support services for graduate students, facilities improvement, faculty development, technology and distance education, and collaborative arrangements with other institutions. This legislation will build capacity and establish a long overdue graduate program for HSIs. In addition, current law places a number of unnecessary, burdensome administrative and regulatory barriers at the gates of our HSIs. If our goal is to increase educational opportunities for all students, and particularly Hispanic students, then we must eliminate bureaucratic barriers that impede access. Accordingly, this legislation removes a 2-year period in which HSIs must wait before becoming eligible to apply for another grant under title V of the Higher Education Act. This 2-year wait out period obstructs the efforts of many HSIs to implement continuing programs and conduct long range planning. As a result, many HSIs cannot maintain continuity in educational programming. We should be creating opportunities to improve the quality of education, and eliminating this wait-out period is a step in the right direction. In addition, this bill eliminates another onerous requirement on HSIs that other minority-serving institutions are not required to follow. Currently, in order to be eligible as an HSI, the institution must serve ``needy students''--meaning at least 50 percent of the degree students are receiving Federal need-based assistance or the institution's percentage of Pell Grant recipients exceeds the median percentage for similar institutions receiving Pell Grants. Also, to be eligible, 25 percent of the full time, undergraduate population must be Hispanic. However, unlike other grant programs in the Higher Education Act, HSIs must also show that 50 percent of the Hispanic population is low income. This last requirement is particularly burdensome, as it is duplicative and unfair, and, in many cases, prevents HSIs from providing vital educational services to Hispanic students. This provision requires the institutions to collect information and data that is not readily available or easily acquirable. It requires the schools to come up with data beyond what is required for financial aid purposes. Further, there is no other requirement in Federal law for institutions to collect this type of data. As a result, many institutions with large Hispanic student populations must divert critical resources and staff to acquire this information, or they simply do not qualify as an HSI. To ensure that the institution continues to serve low-income students, the Next Generation HSI Act maintains the requirement that the institution serve needy students, but eliminates the additional requirement that the school demonstrate that 50 percent of its Hispanic students are low-income. The elimination of this requirement will ease the administrative burdens placed on our schools, and further our goals of increasing access and improving quality. Finally, this bill facilitates the transition of Hispanic students from 2-year colleges to 4-year colleges. As I noted earlier, Hispanics are disproportionately enrolled in 2-year colleges as compared to their non-Hispanic peers. To encourage and support these students' continued education, this legislation adds as an authorized activity programs that assist a student's transfer from a 2-year institution to a 4-year institution. Hispanic students now account for nearly 17 percent of the total kindergarten through grade 12 student population. Estimates project that this student population will grow from 11 million in 2005 to 16 million in 2020. We must provide our institutions of higher education with the resources and flexibility they need to build capacity and serve the increasing Hispanic student population. We must be ready for the next generation of students to meet the demands of a competitive workforce and to fully participate in the global economy. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for Senator Feinstein's amendment. The amendment will provide courts with guidance as to how to manage large multistate class actions in Federal court. This amendment addresses a flaw in the underlying legislation that, if left uncorrected, could leave many properly filed multistate consumer class actions without a forum in which those cases could be heard. I had prepared an amendment that would have reaffirmed the discretionary authority of a judge to select the law of one State, as is currently permissible under the Constitution, and reaffirm the right of the judge to do that instead of denying certification for large multistate consumer class actions. There were some concerns raised by my colleagues, and I have agreed to withhold that amendment and lend my support to the Feinstein compromise approach. I believe the Feinstein compromise will accomplish what I intended to address in my amendment; that is, to make sure injured consumers have their day in court. By amending the diversity jurisdiction rules, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 will give almost exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal courts to hear class action cases. The proponents of the legislation argue that such changes are necessary due to abuses that are occurring in a handful of State courts. Although the bill makes changes to other aspects of class action litigation, such as coupon settlements, this procedural removal of cases from State court to Federal court should be the focus of our scrutiny. This goes to the core of the 10th amendment of the Constitution that preserves the right of a State to protect its citizens. While this shift may be necessary in certain cases, it should not be taken lightly, as we will be taking away the ability of States to hear cases involving injuries to their citizens that are in violation of the State law. This is clearly a fundamental change in jurisprudence. Class action suits have long provided a means for individuals to band together to seek a remedy when they have collectively been damaged in a manner that is significant but would not be economical to advance on their own. These actions empower those citizens who would be left without redress, absent the collective effort of others. This system has provided a necessary balance to a system weighted toward those with the means to defend their actions in court. The suits also take much of the pressure off of a State attorney general. The State attorneys general are not able to investigate and seek remedies for all the citizens who have been damaged or hurt by business in and outside of a State. Class actions reduce the need for overly burdensome regulations and laws that would be necessary if it were to be forced to limit the discretion given to businesses to operate in a responsible manner. Finally, class action litigation protects our citizens from future injuries by putting an end to certain acts of corporate malfeasance and negligence. Although there have been abuses on occasion, the benefits of class action litigation should be evident. Under current law, an individual has the right to participate in a class when a number of people have been injured in a similar fashion by the same defendant. Once the class has been created, if the injury is based on a violation of State law--and many are, as there are really no general consumer protection laws--the class representative generally has the option of filing either in State court or Federal court. In this respect, a class action is similar to any action that is filed in court; that is, the plaintiff is the master of his or her claims. The proponents of this legislation have argued that the basic goal of the legislation is to move these large class actions to Federal court. For instance, Stanton D. Anderson, executive vice president and chief legal counsel for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, wrote in the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated February 27, 2004, that: [t]he Class Action Fairness Act would simply allow federal courts to more easily hear large, national class action lawsuits affecting consumers all over the country. Similarly, in testimony before the Judiciary Committee on July 31, 2002, Walter Dellinger stated: [t]he principal purpose and effect of the [class action] bill is undeniably modest: it merely adjusts the rules of diversity jurisdiction so that certain large multi-party cases--those with true nationwide compass, affecting many or even all states at once--will be litigated in the federal courts rather than in the courts of just one state (or county) or another. Suffice it to say, the new Federal diversity statute for purposes of class action will accomplish this as very few, if any, cases will meet the standards necessary to remain in State court. The operative question is, then, What will happen to these cases once they are in the Federal court system? If we look at the past decade or so, we note an interesting pattern. Although some State courts have certified these large multistate class actions, the Federal courts have not. In fact, six U.S. circuit courts of appeal--the Third Circuit, the Fifth Circuit, the Sixth Circuit, the Seventh Circuit, the Ninth Circuit, and the Eleventh Circuit--and at least 26 Federal district courts have denied class certification in multistate consumer class actions. Except for a 1986 Third Circuit decision which has since been narrowed to only its facts, no U.S. circuit court of appeals has granted class certification in such a case. At the same time, at least seven different States have certified large multistate consumer class actions. Under rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, an action ``may be maintained as a class action if the court finds that the questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.'' Because class action lawsuits involving fraud and deceptive sales practices or sales of defective products allege violations of State consumer protection statutes or common law, there is always a possibility that the laws to be applied will be different. If a court determines that they must apply the laws of different States to different members of a class action, they often find that questions of law common to the members of a class do not predominate. That renders the adjudication of the case as a class action unmanageable, and they deny class certification. This denial is effectively the end of the action. It is not hard to understand why State courts are the forum of choice for these large class actions. The proponents of this legislation are aware that Federal courts do not certify these large class actions. In fact, in most cases, they argue this very point in court. For example, in re Simon, the second litigation, which was before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Chamber of Commerce opined: . . . it is nearly a truism that nationwide class actions in which the claims are subject to varying State laws cannot be certified because they are simply unmanageable. Obviously, these arguments have been persuasive before the Federal courts. In re the Ford Motor Company ignition switch products liability litigation that was in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey, that court stated: [P]laintiffs' first cause of action contends that Ford breached an implied warranty of merchantability under each of the many States' laws that govern this action. Variations among these States' laws, however, preclude classwide adjudication of plaintiffs' claims. This case involved a defective ignition switch that caused it to fail. It has been claimed that this failure may have resulted in as many as 11 deaths and 31 injuries, not to mention almost a billion dollars spent by consumers to replace the defective product. The case was ultimately settled, but it was only settled after a State court in California agreed to certify a class. Senator Feinstein's amendment makes sure that by moving these cases to Federal court, we are not pushing them into a forum that will fail to hear those cases because too many State laws apply. The amendment requires the parties to submit plans as to how the case could be managed by dividing it into subclasses based on the similarity of the State laws that would need to be applied. The judge would then have the discretion to divide the class into subclasses or use some other manner that ensures that the plaintiffs' State laws are applied. Under the Feinstein amendment, the Federal court is not required to divide the class into subclasses; it is simply discretionary. It can still follow the State's choice of law rules, or use any other means permissible to ensure that the plaintiffs' State laws are applied to the extent practicable. If we are going to take away the right of State judges to hear a class action, it is incumbent upon us to make sure the Federal judge is not able to not certify the class because too many State laws would apply. That would be an unfair result. I have heard many Members argue that a deal is a deal; therefore, Members who support the bill, including those who were able to get changes made to the bill before it was brought to the floor, should be precluded from supporting any amendment, including this amendment. I remind my colleagues that although this legislation has been around for years, there has not been a single amendment to improve this legislation that has been voted on on the floor of the Senate prior to this week. The stated intention of the proponents of this bill is to avoid conference with the House and to have that Chamber pass the bill exactly the way it passes the Senate. While they argue this is a reason to not support amendments, I would argue the opposite. Because we know this is the only opportunity for any Member of Congress to amend this legislation, it is imperative that we remain openminded to the few amendments that are going to be offered and debated on the bill. In the 22 years I have been in the Senate, I do not recall a single piece of legislation that could not have benefited from input from all interested Members of the Senate. The Founding Fathers of our country created a legislative branch that is intentionally deliberative and subject to the repetitive processes of debate and amendment. I remind my colleagues of the language included in last year's nonamendable Omnibus appropriations bill that would have allowed staff from the appropriations committees to review taxpayers' tax return information. That one provision almost derailed the entire spending bill for our country. Clearly, if Members had been presented with an opportunity to review the bill on the floor, to amend that bill, we could have avoided that problem. As elected officials, we have a responsibility to the public to do our best to improve legislation before it becomes law, which I believe argues for Members to consider each amendment with an open mind. If my colleagues disagree with this amendment, then I encourage them to vote against it. However, if they agree with me that this catch-22, which is in the current bill, should be corrected, then I hope they will vote for this Feinstein amendment, regardless of whether you previously stated support for the overall bill. I would like to acknowledge and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Specter, for his support of my amendment and what I understand to be his support of the Feinstein amendment. No one could debate the chairman's dedication to getting this bill passed. Yet he agrees that the legislation would be improved by correcting the problem we have identified. Substantively, one of the arguments that was raised by proponents of the bill is that courts have been certifying classes in these large multistate class actions, even though all of the circuits I mentioned before in numerous district courts have denied certification on the ground that the case is unmanageable. The cases enlisted by proponents of the bill in defense of their claim that cases have been certified are cases involving a Federal question or certifications of a class for purposes of settlement. These types of certifications are entirely different than the cases we are referring to; that is, cases involving violations of State law for purposes of a trial. The only way these cases are going to get to the settlement phase is if there is the possibility that a case could be taken to trial, if necessary. It is an important distinction. Again, I point to this in re Simon II litigation where the Chamber of Commerce argued against certification, stating that it is nearly a truism that nationwide class actions in which the claims are subject to varying State laws cannot be certified because they are simply unmanageable. As I mentioned before, this is not just an abstract situation. There are over 300,000 homeowners in Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, and Texas who have been compensated for defective siding they had purchased for their houses. When this case was brought before the Federal court, it was not certified, in part because the court could not ``imagine managing a trial under the law of 51 jurisdictions on the defectiveness of masonite siding.'' Because an Alabama State court agreed to certify the case for trial, the case was settled, and these homeowners were compensated for their damages. Proponents of the legislation also argue that a class denied certification would be free to refile its cases in either State or Federal court. Based on the underlying legislation, the State court cases, almost without exception, would be removed again to the Federal court, and once in Federal court, the case would be sent to the same Federal court that failed to certify the class in the first place due to the procedure for consolidation and the operation of the multidistrict litigation panel. This MDL, multidistrict litigation panel, streamlines large, unwieldy multidistrict litigation involving the same parties and the same facts when those cases are filed in Federal courts. This panel of seven judges appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court determines which cases pending in Federal court should be transferred to a single district court for purposes of hearing and ruling on pretrial matters, including the matter of class certification. The proceedings can be initiated by the MDL panel or by any party involved in one of the actions pending in a district court. All cases of a similar nature in Federal court, including those filed after the consolidation, are affected and subject to being transferred. Once a transferee court has been selected, it rules on all pretrial motions, including class certification, but will send the cases back to the transferor courts for trial, assuming that the case has not settled or been dismissed. All future cases involving similar claims and similar parties are automatically sent back to the same transferee court for any future actions. Class actions by their very nature are large cases and they are affected by the ability of the MDL panel to consolidate, as there are generally different cases pending in district courts throughout the country. Under current law, a class based on claims of State law violations can avoid this consolidation by remaining in State court, but this will no longer be the case after this bill becomes law. Instead, plaintiffs who go through the consolidation process and are not certified will not refile these cases since they would ultimately be back before the same judge who failed to certify the class in the first place. Finally, the proponents of the bill have argued that taking away the right of a judge to deny certification based on too many States' laws is a violation of due process and is anticonsumer. It seems implausible to me that an amendment that would ameliorate the impact of denying States the right to hear certain cases could be considered either a violation of due process or anticonsumer. I believe the amendment of the Senator from California is fair. It is a reasonable approach to dealing with a serious problem created in the underlying legislation. As Chairman Specter stated earlier in the week, this legislation is intended to change the procedure for class actions and not the substantive law. Without Senator Feinstein's amendment this bill could effectively limit the substantive rights of citizens to obtain a remedy for modest damages when a defendant has injured many in a similar fashion. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the Feinstein amendment. I have a letter I received from Professor Arthur Miller at the Harvard Law School. He has been very helpful to me and to other Senators in trying to help us understand the seriousness of the issue and the importance of remedying this through proposals such as the Feinstein amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill addressing community health center payments within Medicare that passed by a vote of 94-1. However, none of these initiatives have been more important than the legislation that we are introducing together today, along with a list of 13 other senators--7 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent, 7 of which serve on the Senate Finance Committee--to create a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid. Joining Senator Smith and I as original cosponsors are: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Santorum, Kerry, DeWine, Durbin, Chafee, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson of Nebraska, Voinovich, Corzine, and Coleman. I will not go into the specifics of the legislation, as Senator Smith has explained how the Commission would be formed and would operate. Instead, I will take the time to explain why it is that the formation of commission is so important. Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net program that provides health care services to over 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities. In New Mexico, Medicaid is the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 400,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population. Although the least expensive to cover, those who benefit most from Medicaid are nearly 300,000 of New Mexico's children. Of the various populations covered, children represent almost two-thirds of all our State's beneficiaries, which is the highest ratio in the Nation according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, Medicaid is much more than just a safety net program for children from low-income families. It also serves low-income adults and pregnant women. It also serves senior citizens and people with disabilities who receive the bulk of their health care through Medicare but who still rely on Medicaid for a substantial share of their benefits and cost-sharing assistance. Medicaid also provides critically needed funding to support our Nation's safety net providers, including disproportionate share hospitals. In the President's budget that was just released, the administration has proposed cutting Medicaid by $60 billion over the next 10 years. Secretary Leavitt recently testified in the Senate Finance Committee that he believes ``Medicaid is flawed and inefficient.'' There are others that believe Medicaid is not working and that costs are spiraling out of control and so the program needs dramatic overhaul. In contrast. there are also those that will attest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct. First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2004. That compares to a 12 percent rise in the annual cost of premiums in the private sector. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare. The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. When nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net program. Consequently, as noted previously, Medicaid now provides health care to over 50 million low-income Americans, including one-quarter of all New Mexicans. This is precisely why I so strongly oppose block grants or any arbitrary caps on Federal spending for Medicaid. If we had caps in 2000 and Medicaid could not have responded to the economic downturn, we would have 50 million uninsured today. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership and an arbitrary cap of the Federal share to States is nothing more than the Federal Government trying to shift all risk to States. On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to provide ``enhanced payments'' to institutional providers as a significant factor in driving Medicaid costs. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.'' Unfortunately, Medicaid reform driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one-way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose its will on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including $40 billion that would directly harm States. Where is the conversation in that? In fact, the States have a fair amount of complaint with Federal cost shifting to the States. While I certainly do not speak for the National Governors' Association or National Conference of States Legislatures, some of those grievances are rather obvious and I share them. For example, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are due to Medicare dual eligible beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs. States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail. In the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the States to help pay for the Federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States will derive a financial windfall from moving dual eligibles from Medicaid coverage to Medicare, some of the States believe the ``clawback'' will cost them more than if they continued to provide prescription drug coverage themselves. The prescription drug bill also impacted States financially in a host of other ways that went largely unnoticed, including those that increased Medicaid costs for dual eligibles as a result of increases in the Medicare Part B deductible and increased payments to the new Medicare Advantage plans. The law also required States to help enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries into the low-income drug benefit. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low-income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation. States had no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them when the Medicare prescription1rrug drug bill was passed, but they should have and will have in our Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid. Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 states will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation. Mr. President, I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid. It is our intent that the recommendations would not be focused on cutting costs but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done. There are those that will argue that a commission may not reach a consensus to make recommendations to improve the Medicaid program and so is not worth the effort. I would strongly disagree and point to the fact that the National Academy for State Health Policy recently convened a workgroup they called Making Medicaid Work for the 21st Century that included many of the Medicaid stakeholders and came forth with a 78-page report with numerous recommendations with respect to eligibility, benefits, and financing. According to the report entitled Improving Health and Long-Term Care Coverage for Low-Income Americans, the workgroup attempted to ``assess areas where it would be most productive to focus on improvement in the program, and to develop consensus around recommendations for reform.'' I would underscore the emphasis of the workgroup on ``improving'' Medicaid and health coverage. This should be the primary and overriding goal of the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that we are introducing today. Before closing, I once again thank Senator Smith, the other 12 Senate cosponsors, and the various stakeholders--State and local governments, providers, and consumers that have endorsed this legislation--in an effort, not to cut Medicaid, but to make it more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Fact Sheet accompanying this legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, Senator Smith and I have worked together successfully on several issues within the last year to defend and improve our Nation's health care safety, including on an amendment to the Medicare prescription drug bill addressing community health center payments within Medicare that passed by a vote of 94-1. However, none of these initiatives have been more important than the legislation that we are introducing together today, along with a list of 13 other senators--7 Republicans, 5 Democrats, and 1 Independent, 7 of which serve on the Senate Finance Committee--to create a Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid. Joining Senator Smith and I as original cosponsors are: Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Santorum, Kerry, DeWine, Durbin, Chafee, Lincoln, Collins, Nelson of Nebraska, Voinovich, Corzine, and Coleman. I will not go into the specifics of the legislation, as Senator Smith has explained how the Commission would be formed and would operate. Instead, I will take the time to explain why it is that the formation of commission is so important. Medicaid is a critically important health care safety net program that provides health care services to over 50 million low-income children, pregnant women, seniors, and people with disabilities. In New Mexico, Medicaid is the single largest payor for health care. All told, Medicaid covers the health care costs of more than 400,000 New Mexicans--nearly one-quarter of our State's population. Although the least expensive to cover, those who benefit most from Medicaid are nearly 300,000 of New Mexico's children. Of the various populations covered, children represent almost two-thirds of all our State's beneficiaries, which is the highest ratio in the Nation according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation. However, Medicaid is much more than just a safety net program for children from low-income families. It also serves low-income adults and pregnant women. It also serves senior citizens and people with disabilities who receive the bulk of their health care through Medicare but who still rely on Medicaid for a substantial share of their benefits and cost-sharing assistance. Medicaid also provides critically needed funding to support our Nation's safety net providers, including disproportionate share hospitals. In the President's budget that was just released, the administration has proposed cutting Medicaid by $60 billion over the next 10 years. Secretary Leavitt recently testified in the Senate Finance Committee that he believes ``Medicaid is flawed and inefficient.'' There are others that believe Medicaid is not working and that costs are spiraling out of control and so the program needs dramatic overhaul. In contrast. there are also those that will attest that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Medicaid. I firmly believe neither point of view is correct. First, Medicaid is far from broken. The cost per person in Medicaid rose just 4.5 percent per year from 2000 to 2004. That compares to a 12 percent rise in the annual cost of premiums in the private sector. If that is the comparison, Medicaid seems to be about the most efficient health care program around, even more so than Medicare. The overall cost of Medicaid is going up largely, not because the program is inefficient, but because more and more people find themselves depending on this safety net program for their health care during a recession. When nearly 5 million people lost employer coverage between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid added nearly 6 million to its program. Costs rose in Medicaid precisely because it is working--and working well--as our Nation's safety net program. Consequently, as noted previously, Medicaid now provides health care to over 50 million low-income Americans, including one-quarter of all New Mexicans. This is precisely why I so strongly oppose block grants or any arbitrary caps on Federal spending for Medicaid. If we had caps in 2000 and Medicaid could not have responded to the economic downturn, we would have 50 million uninsured today. Medicaid is a Federal-State partnership and an arbitrary cap of the Federal share to States is nothing more than the Federal Government trying to shift all risk to States. On the other hand, it is also not true that Medicaid is not in need of improvement. The administration is rightly concerned about certain State efforts to provide ``enhanced payments'' to institutional providers as a significant factor in driving Medicaid costs. Secretary Leavitt, in a speech to the World Health Care Congress on February 1, 2005, referred to State efforts to maximize Federal funding as ``the Seven Harmful Habits of Highly Desperate States.'' As a result, he called for ``an uncomfortable, but necessary, conversation with our funding partners, the States.'' Unfortunately, Medicaid reform driven by a budget reconciliation process is not a dialogue or conversation. It is a one-way mechanism for the Federal Government to impose its will on the States. The administration's budget calls for $60 billion in cuts to Medicaid, including $40 billion that would directly harm States. Where is the conversation in that? In fact, the States have a fair amount of complaint with Federal cost shifting to the States. While I certainly do not speak for the National Governors' Association or National Conference of States Legislatures, some of those grievances are rather obvious and I share them. For example, according to data from Kaiser Family Foundation, 42 percent of the costs in Medicaid are due to Medicare dual eligible beneficiaries. These dual eligibles are also a major driver of health costs in Medicare and this is a prime example of where better coordination between Medicare and Medicaid could improve both programs. States have been calling for better coordination for years to no avail. In the Medicare prescription drug bill that was passed by the Congress in 2003, the Federal Government imposed what is referred to as a ``clawback'' mechanism which forces the States to help pay for the Federally-passed Medicare prescription drug benefit. Although States will derive a financial windfall from moving dual eligibles from Medicaid coverage to Medicare, some of the States believe the ``clawback'' will cost them more than if they continued to provide prescription drug coverage themselves. The prescription drug bill also impacted States financially in a host of other ways that went largely unnoticed, including those that increased Medicaid costs for dual eligibles as a result of increases in the Medicare Part B deductible and increased payments to the new Medicare Advantage plans. The law also required States to help enroll low-income Medicare beneficiaries into the low-income drug benefit. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, estimated that States had $5.8 billion in added enrollment of dual eligibles in Medicaid due to what they refer to as a ``woodworking'' effect on dual eligibles trying to sign up for the low-income drug benefit discovering they are also eligible for Medicaid benefits. CBO further estimated that States had $3.1 billion in new administrative and other costs added by the prescription drug legislation. States had no ability to ``have a conversation'' with the Federal Government about the imposition of such costs on them when the Medicare prescription1rrug drug bill was passed, but they should have and will have in our Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid. Furthermore, due to a recent rebenchmarking done by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Affairs with respect to the calculation of per capita income in the States and the application of that data by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the Medicaid Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP, many States, including New Mexico, will see a rather dramatic decline in their Federal Medicaid matching percentage. In fact, due to the rebenchmarking and other factors, 29 states will lose Medicaid funding in 2006 by an amount of in excess of $800 million. Again, this occurred with no dialogue or conversation. Mr. President, I agree with Secretary Leavitt that there should be a conversation among all the stakeholders about the future of Medicaid and about what are the fair division of responsibilities between the Federal Government, States, local governments, providers, and the over 50 million people served by Medicaid. It is for this reason that the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid includes all of those stakeholders at the table to have a full discussion and debate about the future of Medicaid. It is our intent that the recommendations would not be focused on cutting costs but about improving health care delivery to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. However, they are not mutually exclusive. In fact, both can and should be done. There are those that will argue that a commission may not reach a consensus to make recommendations to improve the Medicaid program and so is not worth the effort. I would strongly disagree and point to the fact that the National Academy for State Health Policy recently convened a workgroup they called Making Medicaid Work for the 21st Century that included many of the Medicaid stakeholders and came forth with a 78-page report with numerous recommendations with respect to eligibility, benefits, and financing. According to the report entitled Improving Health and Long-Term Care Coverage for Low-Income Americans, the workgroup attempted to ``assess areas where it would be most productive to focus on improvement in the program, and to develop consensus around recommendations for reform.'' I would underscore the emphasis of the workgroup on ``improving'' Medicaid and health coverage. This should be the primary and overriding goal of the Bipartisan Commission on Medicaid that we are introducing today. Before closing, I once again thank Senator Smith, the other 12 Senate cosponsors, and the various stakeholders--State and local governments, providers, and consumers that have endorsed this legislation--in an effort, not to cut Medicaid, but to make it more efficient and effective in the delivery of care to our Nation's most vulnerable citizens. I ask unanimous consent to have a copy of the Fact Sheet accompanying this legislation printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there are strong reasons that cause me to want to support the nomination of Alberto Gonzales. He is clearly well educated. He has the experience and credentials to be our Attorney General. He clearly has the confidence of the President, and, as a general matter, the President should be given broad discretion in choosing his Cabinet. Alberto Gonzales's personal history, as the son of immigrant parents, is truly inspiring, and he would be the first Hispanic Attorney General in our Nation's history. So under any normal circumstances, these reasons would be more than adequate to gain my support for this nomination. But the fact is that the policies of this administration, which in some cases Judge Gonzales has championed, and in other cases he has willingly acquiesced in, have constituted a sad chapter in our Nation's history. This administration's willingness to evade and sidestep our historic commitment to the rule of law is unfortunate, indeed, and I fear that a vote for the nominee would be interpreted as condoning those reprehensible policies. In July of 2003, I spoke on the Senate floor about my concerns with the policies and practices of the administration with regard to the detention of three categories of individuals: immigrants, persons detained as material witnesses, and persons detained as enemy combatants. This morning I reviewed those comments, and I believe today my concerns regarding the failure to afford basic due process rights that I discussed then are well founded. The administration, in reaction to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, chose to argue against any and all legal protections against arbitrary and abusive exercise of the power of the Government to incarcerate individuals. It made those arguments by using the rationale that we were a nation at war and that the law of war overrode the rule of law as we have known it. Judge Gonzales played a key role in developing the legal justifications for some of those policies. He strongly supported the decision to hold individuals unilaterally deemed enemy combatants by the President, including American citizens, indefinitely without judicial review. He advised the Judiciary Committee that he accepted the views in the Department of Justice memo that significantly limited the definition of torture and drastically expanded the President's power to overrule Federal and international restrictions to its use. In remarks to the Standing Committee on Law and National Security of the American Bar Association in February 2004, Alberto Gonzales argued that the ``law of war'' justified the administration's position that the President has virtually unfettered authority to designate individuals as ``enemy combatants'' and then to incarcerate those individuals ``for the duration of hostilities.'' He went on to state: They need not be guilty of anything; they are detained simply by virtue of their status as enemy combatants in war. Since that speech was given, the Federal courts have soundly rejected the proposition that the Government could hold individuals without according them the right to challenge the basis of their detention. In two cases decided this last June, Rasul v. Bush and Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right of all individuals detained within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and inquire into the legality of their detention. Indeed the right to challenge the Government's deprivation of a person's liberty is fundamental to our Nation's commitment to justice. In the Hamdi case, the administration maintained that the President's authority to hold enemy combatants included American citizens and that Federal courts could provide minimal judicial oversight. The Government argued that a simple affidavit by a Department of Defense official alleging that Hamdi was involved in hostilities in Afghanistan was sufficient to indefinitely deprive an American citizen of his liberty. According to this administration, it was neither proper nor necessary to hold any factual or evidentiary hearing or to give Hamdi an opportunity to rebut the Government's assertions. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that an American detained as an enemy combatant must be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for his detention before a neutral arbiter. In reaffirming ``the fundamental nature of a citizen's right to be free from involuntary confinement by his own government without due process of law,'' the Court sent a clear message to the administration that ``a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of our Nation's citizens.'' In Rasul, which involved the cases of foreign nationals held in Guantanamo for over 2 years, the administration argued that despite the fact the United States has exercised exclusive jurisdiction over Guantanamo since 1903, Federal courts have no jurisdiction to hear their claims because Cuba technically retained sovereignty in the area. Once again, the Supreme Court disagreed and granted the detainees the right to demonstrate that they were being held contrary to domestic and international law. Our failure to afford these individuals a right to be heard and to assert their innocence has in certain cases resulted in the unnecessary and lengthy detention of people who were merely in the wrong place at the wrong time. According to a Wall Street Journal article dated January 26 of this year: Commanders now estimate that up to 40% of the 549 current detainees probably pose no threat and possess no significant information. Whether or not this number is completely accurate, it demonstrates the importance of providing individuals with the right to challenge the Government's claims and the right to refute the basis for their detention. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the administration's position regarding the treatment of detainees is as troubling as its position on its unfettered right to incarcerate. The Justice Department, through its Office of Legal Counsel, on August 1, 2002, issued its now discredited and withdrawn memorandum regarding standards of conduct for interrogation. That document provided legal sanction for abuse of prisoners by narrowing the definition of what we would recognize as torture under the Convention against Torture and other Federal law. It is true that this memorandum was prepared for Alberto Gonzales and not by him, but there is no indication that he disagreed with its conclusions. In fact, when asked about the memorandum in his confirmation hearing, he stated: I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions that were reached by the Department. Removing the bright line that has guided our troops for the last 60 years increases the chances that other countries will refuse to afford our troops legal protections in future conflicts and enhances the likelihood that they will be made subject to harsh interrogation techniques. MG Mel Montano, former head of the National Guard in the State of New Mexico, in his letter to the Judiciary Committee eloquently gave voice to those concerns. He said: I was among 12 retired Admirals and Generals . . . who wrote to you urging that you closely examine Judge Gonzales's role in setting US policy on torture during the confirmation hearing. At that hearing, Judge Gonzales did not allay concerns about his record. To the contrary, his evasiveness and memory lapses raised even more concerns. Judge Gonzales continues to maintain that he can't remember how the infamous torture memo was generated. He has refused to explain the language in his own memo which implied that rejecting the applicability of the Geneva Convention would insulate US personnel for prosecution of war crimes they might ``need'' to commit. And he asserts that the Convention Against Torture's prohibition on cruel and inhuman treatment doesn't apply to aliens overseas. In my view these positions put our servicemen and women-- already facing enormous danger--at even greater risk. . . . The Constitution is clear that the President ``will take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The obvious first responsibility of the Counsel to the President is to advise him concerning what is meant by that obligation. As regards the basic protections in our Constitution and laws against incarceration and abuse of individuals by the Government, both the President and his legal counsel have failed in that duty. I am compelled to vote no on the nomination. I ask unanimous consent that the full letter from Major General Montano to the Judiciary Committee be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, is necessary to assist the City of Albuquerque, NM clear title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the City will be able to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens, and the entire State of New Mexico. The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the City purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is unnecessarily delaying and complicating the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time- consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Albuquerque Biological Park Title Clarification Act with my colleague Senator Domenici. This bill, which passed the Senate in the 108th Congress, is necessary to assist the City of Albuquerque, NM clear title to two parcels of land located along the Rio Grande. If title is cleared, the City will be able to move forward with its plans to improve the properties as part of a Biological Park Project, a city funded initiative to create a premier environmental educational center for its citizens, and the entire State of New Mexico. The Biological Park Project has been in the works since 1987 when the City began to develop an aquarium and botanic garden along the banks of the Rio Grande. Those facilities constitute just a portion of the overall project. As part of this effort, in 1997, the City purchased two properties from the Middle Rio Grande Conservancy District (MRGCD) for $3,875,000. The first property, Tingley Beach, had been leased by the City from MRGCD since 1931 and used for public park purposes. The second property, San Gabriel Park, had been leased by the City since 1963, and also used for public park purposes. In the year 2000, the City's plans were interrupted when the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation asserted that in 1953, it had acquired ownership of all of MRGCD's property associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project. The United States' assertion called into question the validity of the 1997 transaction between the City and MRGCD. Both MRGCD and the City dispute the United States' claim of ownership. This dispute is unnecessarily delaying and complicating the City's progress in developing the Biological Park Project. If the matter is simply left to litigation, the delay will be indefinite. Reclamation has already determined that the two properties are surplus to the needs of the Middle Rio Grande Project. Moreover, the record indicates that Reclamation had once considered releasing its interest in the properties for $1.00 each. Obviously, the federal interest in these properties is low while the local interest is high. This bill is narrowly tailored to address this local interest, affecting only the two properties at issue. The general dispute concerning title to project works is left for the courts to decide. I hope my colleagues will work with me to help resolve this issue. While much of what we do here in the Congress is complex and time- consuming work, we should also have the ability to move quickly when necessary and appropriate to solve local problems caused by federal actions. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and Senator Domenici to introduce legislation to allow a transfer of land to Rio Arriba County, NM from the Bureau of Land Management. The land is needed for County facilities, a cemetery for a local parish, and a new public school. Rio Arriba County is in a difficult position; the needs of the rapidly increasing area population continue to increase but there is precious little land available to the County where they can locate necessary facilities. Fortunately, the County has worked with the BLM to find a parcel of land that each agrees will best serve the interests of the public if it is transferred to County ownership. Indeed, I am told that BLM would likely have handled this transfer administratively if they were not barred from doing so by the particular history of how this parcel came into federal ownership. I am unaware of any opposition to the transfer. This bill will simply change the legal framework for the parcel so that the transfer can take place. I hope the Senate can act on this bill as quickly as possible so that Rio Arriba County can move forward to meet the pressing needs of the people there. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, on behalf of myself, Senator Domenici and Senator Kyl, I am pleased today to introduce the United States- Mexico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Act. This legislation is intended to address the significant challenges concerning water resources that exist along the U.S-Mexico border. Recognizing the importance of these issues to the States making up that border, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and California, the Senate passed this bill twice during the 108th Congress. With strong bipartisan, and now bicameral support, I hope we can act quickly to pass it once again so that it can be enacted into law at the earliest opportunity. The genesis of this bill is a field hearing I conducted over three years ago during my tenure as the Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The focus of that hearing was water resource issues developing along the U.S.-Mexico border. In particular, I was concerned that issues regarding the availability of future water supplies were growing, and could lead to conflict in the region. The testimony at that hearing made clear that consensus is lacking on how communities in the border region will address their future water needs. Most significant, I was struck by the lack of agreement on the long- term viability of future groundwater sources, many of which involve aquifers underlying both the United States and Mexico. Given the rapid population growth along the border, and the corresponding increase in demand for potable water, there is a strong need to gain a common and detailed understanding of our shared groundwater resources. A science- based understanding of the resource is the first step to avoid conflicts similar to the one arising in south Texas over Rio Grande water deliveries under the 1944 U.S.-Mexico treaty. The United States-Mexico Trans-boundary Assessment Act is intended to address the lack of a binational consensus regarding water supplies along the border. It will do this by establishing a scientific program, involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Water Resources Research Institutes, and appropriate authorities and other entities on both sides of the border, to comprehensively assess priority transboundary aquifers. Ultimately, the information and scientific tools developed under the program will be extremely valuable to State and local water resource managers in the border region. Of particular note, the analysis will include a search for new sources of water such as saline aquifers. Continued development of desalination technologies may lead to significant use of this untapped resource in the near future. I understand that establishing this scientific program and accurately assessing our shared water resources is just a step towards developing the long-term plans and solutions that will help avoid future international disputes concerning scare water supplies. This small step, however, is an important one, and one with broad policy support. In its 6th Report on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, an independent federal advisory committee managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommended the initiation of a ``border-wide groundwater assessment program to systematically analyze priority trans-boundary aquifers.'' Also, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, in a January 2003 report of its U.S.-Mexico Binational Council, included as one of its recommendations that Mexico and the United States ``improve data collection, information gathering, and transparency as the first step to developing a long-term strategy for water management.'' Ultimately, an effective long-term strategy will have to be developed by the communities and other water users who reside along the border. Working with each other and their State water resource agencies, I believe successful strategies can be developed so long as the information upon which those plans are based is the most accurate possible. In that respect, the USGS, along with its State-based partners, have a strong and important role to play. The resources and criteria provided by this legislation will ensure that these organizations can fulfill that role which, in turn, will enhance the prospects of our border communities to be able to plan for their future in a manner ensuring their long-term viability and prosperity. Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with 13 other Senators to introduce the bipartisan Essential Air Service Preservation Act of 2005. I am pleased to have my colleague Senator Snowe as the principal cosponsor of the bill. Senator Snowe has been a long-time champion of commercial air service in rural areas, and I appreciate her continued leadership on this important legislation. Senators Ben Nelson, Collins, Rockefeller, Harkin, Grassley, Jeffords, Schumer, Leahy, Clinton, Pryor, Levin, and Specter are also cosponsors of the bill. Congress established the Essential Air Service Program in 1978 to ensure that communities that had commercial air service before airline deregulation could continue to receive scheduled service. Without EAS, many rural communities would have no commercial air service at all. Our bill is very simple. It preserves Congress' intent in the Essential Air Service program by repealing a provision in the 2003 FAA reauthorization bill that would for the first time require communities to pay for their commercial air service. The legislation that imposed mandatory cost sharing on communities to retain their commercial air service had been stricken from both the House and Senate versions of the FAA reauthorization bill, but was reinserted by conferees. I believe that any program that forces communities to pay to continue to receive their commercial air service could well be the first step in the total elimination of scheduled air service for many rural communities. Two times since mandatory cost sharing was enacted Congress has blocked it from being implemented. For fiscal years 2004 and 2005, a bipartisan group of senators included language in the Department of Transportation's appropriations act that bars the use of funds to implement any mandatory cost sharing program. This bill would simply make Congress' ongoing ban permanent. All across America, small communities face ever-increasing hurdles to promoting their economic growth and development. Today, many rural areas lack access to interstate or even four-lane highways, railroads or broadband telecommunications. Business development in rural areas frequently hinges on the availability of scheduled air service. For small communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation system. The Essential Air Service Program currently ensures commercial air service to over 100 communities in thirty-four states. EAS supports an additional 33 communities in Alaska. Because of increasing costs and the continuing financial turndown in the aviation industry, particularly among commuter airlines, about 28 additional communities have been forced into the EAS program since the terrorist attacks in 2001. In my State of New Mexico, five cities currently rely on EAS for their commercial air service. The communities are Clovis, Hobbs, Carlsbad, Alamogordo and my hometown of Silver City. In each case commercial service is provided to Albuquerque, the state's business center and largest city. I believe this ill-conceived proposal requiring cities to pay to continue to have commercial air service could not come at a worse time for small communities already facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues. As I understand it, the mandatory cost-sharing requirements in the FAA reauthorization bill could affect communities in as many as 22 states. Based on an analysis by my staff, the individual cities that could be affected are as follows: Alabama--Muscle Shoals; Arizona--Prescott, Kingman; Arkansas--Hot Springs, Harrison, Jonesboro; Colorado--Pueblo; Georgia--Athens; Iowa--Fort Dodge, Burlington; Kansas-- Salina; Kentucky--Owensboro; Maine--Augusta, Rockland; Michigan--Iron Mt.; Mississippi Laurel; Missouri--Joplin, Ft. Leonard Wood; New Hampshire--Lebanon; New Mexico--Hobbs, Alamogordo, Clovis; New York--Watertown, Jamestown, Plattsburgh; Oklahoma--Ponca City, Enid; Pennsylvania-- Johnstown, Oil City, Bradford, Altoona; South Dakota-- Brookings, Watertown; Tennessee--Jackson; Texas--Victoria; Vermont--Rutland; Washington--Moses Lake As I see it, the choice here is clear: If we do not preserve the Essential Air Service Program today, we could soon see the end of all commercial air service in rural areas. The EAS program provides vital resources that help link rural communities to the national and global aviation system. Our bill will preserve the essential air service program and help ensure that affordable, reliable, and safe air service remains available in rural America. Congress is already on record opposing mandatory cost sharing. I hope all Senators will once again join us in opposing this attack on rural America. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.