Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I join my colleague, Senator Domenici, in urging the Senate to support this nomination. Judith Herrera is very qualified. I compliment the President for nominating her for this position. I compliment my colleague for recommending that nomination. She will serve us well on the district court in New Mexico. Ms. Herrera began her career as a prosecutor, and has spent many years in private practice. Currently, she is a partner at Herrera, Long, Pound & Komer in Santa Fe, NM. She has also served on the Santa Fe City Council and on the University of New Mexico's Board of Regents. Mrs. Herrera has served with distinction in all of these positions. I urge my fellow Senators to support her nomination.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the Senator from Washington for yielding me time to speak to her amendment to strike section 3116 and follow-on sections. Section 3116 is labeled the Defense Site Acceleration Completion. That is the name of the section. That is a fair characterization of what the provision intends to do. It does propose to hasten the day when the Department of Energy can declare its work complete. In my view, it does not accelerate in any way the cleanup of DOE defense sites. It does accelerate the date that DOE can declare its responsibility completed. In fact, to the contrary, the provision allows the Department of Energy to abandon its commitment to clean out these sites and to walk away from them while there are substantial amounts of high-level radioactive waste still in the ground. Section 3116 is not a model of clarity. I am told the provision no longer applies to DOE sites in Washington State, Idaho, and in New York as it once did. It now only applies to high-level radioactive waste tanks at Savannah River, S.C. There is not specific language in the provision saying that, but I am certainly willing to accept the intent of the provision. The obvious question is, what is in the Savannah River tanks? From 1953 until the end of the cold war, the Department of Energy at Savannah River has made plutonium for our nuclear weapons. It did so by irradiating uranium fuel in five nuclear reactors on that site and it then reprocessed the spent fuel to separate the plutonium from the highly radioactive waste products. The waste material consists of a mixture of highly toxic, hazardous chemicals used in the chemical separation process--a mixture of that along with a wide variety of highly radioactive fission products and transuranic elements, formed during the nuclear reaction. Some of these fission products emit intense amounts of radiation over a short period of time. Others emit less intense amounts of radiation over a much longer period of time. Both pose a serious danger to the public health and to the environment. The short-lived radionuclides remain dangerous for hundreds of years. The long-lived ones remain dangerous for thousands of years. The Department of Energy has been storing this mixture in 51 steel tanks at Savannah River. The tanks each hold on average about a million gallons of waste. In other words, each is about the size of our Capitol dome. I repeat, we have 51 of those tanks, each about the size of the Capitol dome, located at Savannah River. The waste in the Savannah River tanks is, by definition, high-level radioactive waste. We have been using that term in our laws now for over 30 years. Different laws have worded the definition differently, but they have all said essentially the same thing, and that is that high-level radioactive waste is the material that results from reprocessing spent fuel, and that includes both the liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material that settles out of the liquid or is derived from it. There are two important legal consequences that flow from this tank waste being defined as high-level radioactive waste. The first legal consequence is that its disposal is subjected to licensing and regulation by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. That is required under the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which was signed into law by President Ford. The second legal consequence is the waste must be buried in a deep geological repository, rather than being left where it is. This is a requirement we put into law in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 which was signed into law by President Reagan. The Department of Energy has begun removing the liquid waste from the tanks at Savannah River and turning it into glass logs and storing the glass logs until they can be buried in a geologic repository which is expected to be built at Yucca Mountain. Removing all of the sludge that has settled to the bottom of these tanks clearly is going to prove difficult and expensive. So to sidestep that requirement, the Department of Energy would like to reclassify the waste as something other than high-level radioactive waste and leave it where it is. Years ago the Department of Energy adopted an administrative order asserting that they had the authority to do that. Last fall a Federal judge in Idaho held the order was unlawful. The Department is now asking Congress to change the law and to give the Department of Energy the power the court said the Department did not have. Section 3116 would do that, so far as the Savannah River tanks are concerned. The language of 3116 is very clear. It says notwithstanding all of the laws that say Savannah River wastes are high-level radioactive wastes, the Secretary of Energy, in his discretion or her discretion, can decide they are not high-level radioactive wastes. The Secretary's discretion would not be entirely without limits. Section 3116 imposes three tests that have to be met for the Secretary to exercise this discretion, but on close examination those tests impose very few restrictions on the Secretary. Let me talk a minute about each of these three tests. The first test is that the material ``does not require permanent isolation in a deep geologic repository.'' As I said before, the high- level radioactive waste is made up of both intensely radioactive short- lived radionuclides and less intensively radioactive long-lived radionuclides. The first step speaks to the second group of less intensely radioactive long-lived radionuclides. The need for permanent isolation correlates with the length of time the material remains radioactive. According to the Department of Energy, over 99 percent of the radioactivity now present in the high-level waste tanks is from short-lived radionuclides. These will remain dangerous for several hundred years. But because they will decay to safe levels sometime before the end of this millennium, they do not, according to the Department of Energy, require permanent isolation in the deep geologic repository. The first test in section 3116 may look like a serious hurdle, but according to the Department of Energy, 99 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks passes that test. The second test is no better. It requires the secretary to determine that ``highly radioactive radionuclides have been removed to the maximum extent possible.'' The second test speaks to the first proof of radionuclides, intensely radioactive, short-lived ones which DOE believe make up 99 percent of the radioactivity in the tanks. The second test is no test at all. It does not require DOE to reduce the highly radioactive short-lived radionuclides to meet a public health and safety standard based on the maximum safe dose to the public or a maximum concentration level. It simply says do what can be done ``to the maximum extent practicable.'' That means, as the court said last summer, ``if DOE determines that it is too expensive or too difficult to remove short-lived radionuclides from the waste, DOE is free to say the waste is no longer high-level radioactive waste, even though it will remain dangerous for centuries.'' The third test is the most illusory of the three. At first glance it appears to subject the disposal of the tank wastes to State regulation. If the third test is meant to do that, it marks a major departure in the law. The courts have consistently held that the Atomic Energy Act preempts the States from regulating nuclear waste disposal. The third test confers no authority on the State to regulate nuclear waste disposal. It clearly states that South Carolina's Regulatory Authority must be ``conferred on the State outside this Act.'' So far as I am aware, there is no Federal law that gives South Carolina or any other State the authority to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive defense waste. The only agency with authority to regulate the disposal of high-level radioactive waste is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC has had that authority for 30 years. Section 3116 strips it of that authority, limits its role to one of ``consultation'' and ``review'' of criteria. My conclusion is that section 3116 is a very troubling provision. It deregulates the disposal of the Savannah River tank waste in all but name. It is essentially the legislative equivalent of the ``Mission Accomplished'' banner we saw on the aircraft carrier that allowed the Department of Energy to declare its work was done and to walk away from its obligations. Section 3116 also sets a terrible precedent, in my view. If we agree to give DOE this authority at Savannah River in this bill this year, why not give the same authority with regard to Hanford next year and with regard to the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory next year? And with regard to West Valley Demonstration Plant the year after that? Enactment of section 3116 may also toll the death knell from the Civilian Nuclear Waste Program that we have had in place for many years. That program is already in serious jeopardy. It is years behind schedule. It is likely to be grossly underfunded this year. It is beset by lawsuits and serious technical challenges. Shipping nuclear waste on the public highways and railways will be extremely unpopular. Section 3116 sends the message that we do not need a deep geologic repository for Savannah River tank waste, that it is safe to leave those wastes where they are. The obvious question is, If it is safe to leave high-level waste in the Savannah River tanks, why not leave those same kinds of wastes at Hanford and at the Idaho laboratory? If it is safe to leave defense wastes where they are, why not leave commercial powerplant wastes where they are, as well? For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for Senator Cantwell's amendment and to strike section 3116 from the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I will conclude. This legislation and the establishment of these campaign medals will also serve to honor those who will not return home from these conflicts, including those who have fallen from my home State of New Mexico: Army SP James Prittle from Carlsbad, NM; Air Force Special Operations pilot, CPT Tamara Archuleta from Albuquerque, NM, a single mother whose helicopter crashed in Afghanistan; Marine PFC Christopher Ramos of Albuquerque, NM; and Marine Cpl Aaron Austin of Lovington, NM. These heroes gave their lives for this Nation. This medal will honor that sacrifice as well. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is appropriate that we honor them with an award that truly stands for their heroic service. The Iraq and Afghanistan campaign medals will do that. As I indicated before, I will now yield time to my colleague from Arkansas, and he can take as much time as he would like of that which remains on our side.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me take another minute to conclude the discussion. Again, I thank Senator Warner particularly for his leadership in getting this bill up for a vote today, and, of course, Senator Pryor, who was here a few minutes ago to speak; I appreciate his efforts. Of course, the majority leader and Senator Daschle on the Democratic side have both participated in helping do this. This is an important step for us to take, to honor the brave men and women who are serving our country in distant locations. I have had a similar experience to the one Senator Warner described, talking to service men and women who have returned--in the case of my State, from Afghanistan, the ones I spoke to, 2 weeks ago. They are very proud of what they have done. They have great reason to be proud of what they have done. This awarding of these campaign medals will help us to recognize that. Let me also indicate my appreciation to David Montotya of my staff for the consistent work he has done trying to move this legislation ahead, both last year and again this year. I think the dedicated efforts of our staffs often go unrecognized. He deserves credit. Trudy Vincent, my staff legislative director, also deserves credit.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed another 2 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 6 minutes off of the time on this side, and then the remaining 4 minutes will be reserved for the Senator from Arkansas who is in the Chamber to speak. I know Senator Warner intends to speak as well. First, I thank the majority leader, the Democratic leader, Senator Warner, and Senator Levin for their leadership in bringing this legislation to the Senate floor today for a vote. H.R. 3104 is a bill to honor our service men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan with campaign medals that recognize--appropriately recognize, in my view--their service and their sacrifice. A few days from now we will all honor those who have given their lives in defense of this great Nation. That is, of course, Memorial Day. This year it takes on special meaning since we clearly are engaged in two wars in which we have suffered many losses. Many fathers and mothers, sons and daughters will spend this Memorial Day not with family and friends but instead in Afghanistan or in Iraq. It is for them and their families that I believe we need to pass this legislation. Over the last 2 weeks, we have been flooded with horrific images of Iraqi prisoners mistreated at the hands of a few soldiers. This set of incidents has cast a dark shadow over the honorable and courageous service of over 2 million men and women in uniform. Today, we have an opportunity to send a strong, unequivocal message of support for our brave young men and women who have served and continue to serve both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. H.R. 3104 will provide the special recognition to these soldiers that, in my view, is long overdue. The administration made a decision to award a generic global war on terrorism expeditionary medal to all of the men and women who have served in those two theaters of war. In my view, that is an effort to essentially practice a one-size-fits-all solution. I think it missed the mark. I think we can do better. This legislation will do better. A campaign medal, such as is contemplated in this legislation, is different from an expeditionary medal. We can look back into the history of campaign medals and expeditionary medals awarded by our Department of Defense in previous campaigns and see that the campaign medals are reserved for those engaged in actual combat, or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the operation with armed opposition. That is what our men and women are facing today both in Iraq and Afghanistan. Clearly, service in those two locations warrants the authorization of campaign medals. I am very pleased to see many of my colleagues have chosen to cosponsor the Senate version of this bill. This bill now has 24 cosponsors, including Senators Lugar, Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Gregg, Johnson, Rockefeller, Pryor, Reid, Daschle, Lincoln, Boxer, Durbin, Biden, Akaka, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Nelson, Conrad, Kennedy, Stabenow, Dole, and Byrd. And, of course, I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee again for their important leadership in getting this legislation enacted. Also, I wish to acknowledge the very hard work and good work that was done by Representative Vic Snyder, who was the sponsor of this measure in the House. This measure we are going to vote on is identical to the bill we introduced in the Senate, and Representative Snyder deserves great credit for his hard work in getting it enacted there. Mr. President, I am informed there is some additional time. I have been informed we do not expect to start the vote until about 11:30 a.m. Let me continue for another minute and say that after a particularly dangerous and brutal April, America now mourns the deaths of nearly 800 service men and women in Iraq, as well as 119 in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 3,000 Americans injured in those campaigns. More than a year after the initial Iraqi invasion, the administration has announced plans to maintain a force of at least 135,000 troops in Iraq through 2005. Despite the assurances we would be able to handle this with an $87 billion supplement through this fiscal year, we now see that is not going to be possible. This is a significant military occupation. It is a significant reconstruction effort. In fact, it is the most significant we have ventured into since World War II. We must not underestimate the importance of the sacrifice these men and women are making.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I concur with that assessment, and ask the additional time between now and 11:30 a.m. be split equally between the two sides.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Thomas, and I are introducing the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2004.'' This legislation would reduce the cost of health insurance for the self-employed by allowing these workers to exclude the cost of their health insurance from their income for purposes of calculating their payroll taxes. Although the self-employed are now allowed an income tax deduction for the amount they pay for health insurance, they must still calculate their payroll taxes as if they were not allowed this income tax deduction. Essentially, the self-employed are paying payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow the self-employed to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 74,000 self-employed workers in New Mexico. While we have no idea how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.6 million working families in the United States paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spend more than $9,000 per year to provide health insurance for their family. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax on their premiums resulting in almost $1,400 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and is supported by a variety of groups including the National Association for the Self-employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Legislative Council. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today my colleague, Senator Thomas, and I are introducing the ``Equity for Our Nation's Self-Employed Act of 2004.'' This legislation would reduce the cost of health insurance for the self-employed by allowing these workers to exclude the cost of their health insurance from their income for purposes of calculating their payroll taxes. Although the self-employed are now allowed an income tax deduction for the amount they pay for health insurance, they must still calculate their payroll taxes as if they were not allowed this income tax deduction. Essentially, the self-employed are paying payroll taxes on the amount they pay for health insurance. The legislation we are introducing today would stop this inequitable tax treatment and allow the self-employed to deduct the amount they pay for health insurance from their calculation of payroll taxes. This problem affects all self-employed who provide health insurance to their families. According to the Census Bureau, there are almost 74,000 self-employed workers in New Mexico. While we have no idea how many of these people in New Mexico have health insurance, we do know that roughly 3.6 million working families in the United States paid self-employment tax on their health insurance premiums. Estimates indicate that roughly 60 percent of our Nation's uninsured are either self-employed or work for a small business. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, self-employed workers spend more than $9,000 per year to provide health insurance for their family. Because they cannot deduct this as an ordinary business expense, those that spend this amount will pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax on their premiums resulting in almost $1,400 of taxes annually. This problem was identified by the National Taxpayer Advocate in several of her annual reports to Congress and is supported by a variety of groups including the National Association for the Self-employed, the National Small Business Association, the National Federation of Independent Businesses, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and the Small Business Legislative Council. I look forward to working with my colleagues to get this important legislation passed.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong hope that we can get agreement today to move ahead with H.R. 3104 and pass that legislation before we adjourn this week. This is legislation which has passed the House unanimously and has come over to the Senate. In my opinion, this should now pass the Senate and go to the President for signature. This is legislation that would honor those service men and women in Iraq and in Afghanistan who have served their country there or continue to serve there. Obviously, over the last couple of weeks the reputation of our military has been stained by the horrific events at Abu Ghraib prison and every level of our military has been affected by the actions of the few who have been identified. I think all of us are looking to see the extent of the problem. All of us are anxious to ensure the problem does not continue in the future. At this point, it is important to recognize and honor the thousands of fighting men and women who serve this Nation every day with commitment, courage, integrity, and professionalism both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. That is the purpose of the legislation I am urging us to bring up and to pass today. We have a Senate version of this same bill that has been introduced. It has 24 cosponsors. I have introduced this legislation with Senators Lugar and Lott, Landrieu, Inhofe, Gregg, Johnson, Rockefeller, Pryor, Reid, Daschle, Lincoln, Boxer, Durbin, Biden, Akaka, Edwards, Kerry, Clinton, Bayh, Feingold, Nelson, Conrad, Kennedy, Stabenow, and Dole. So this is a broadly supported piece of legislation on both sides of the political aisle. I particularly want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, for his support of this important measure. This has been a dangerous and a brutal period for our troops in Iraq in particular, but also in Afghanistan. There have been nearly 3,000 Americans injured in these 2 conflicts in recent months. More than a year after the initial Iraq invasion, the administration has announced plans to maintain a force of at least 135,000 troops in Iraq through next year, through 2005. We will have many debates as we proceed with the Defense authorization bill next week and then later with the Defense appropriations bill, on the right level of funding, on how quickly to proceed with funding. President Bush has recently asked for another $25 billion to be included in the defense budget for the operations in Iraq and I know there will be discussion about whether that is the appropriate amount. But clearly the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military occupation and reconstruction effort this country has engaged in since World War II. We must not underestimate the importance of the work that is involved here. I think it is important that we recognize those whose lives are on the line to accomplish this very difficult task. Let me talk a minute about what is at stake in this legislation. The Defense Department has decided in their view what is appropriate is to award to the brave men and women who are serving in those two conflicts the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and no other medal. This is despite the fact the Global War on Terrorism Medal is meant for any individual who served overseas during this war on terror and may have come within a few hundred miles of a combat zone. The dangers of serving in Iraq and in Afghanistan are far greater. Therefore, along with my colleagues, I propose to correct what I considered a mistake by authorizing that we issue the Iraq and Afghanistan Liberation Medals in addition to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. When the President was defending Secretary Rumsfeld earlier this week, he noted Secretary Rumsfeld was involved in leading the military in ``two wars.'' If the President is willing to acknowledge the fact we are engaged in two wars, then his decision about how to award medals should be consistent with that. The policy we are currently following, that the Pentagon is currently following, is not consistent with that. While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on the wisdom of going to war in Iraq, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from Active Duty, from National Guard, and from Reserves are all volunteers. They exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. We believe what they are doing in Iraq and what they are doing in Afghanistan today differs from military expeditionary activity such as peacekeeping operations or enforcement of no-fly zones. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to their family, to their friends. They continue to serve despite the constant threat which they face to their own lives and the tremendous hardship many of them face. There is a difference between an expeditionary medal and a campaign medal and it is a well-recognized difference that goes back throughout our military history. We only need to look at an excerpt from U.S. Army Qualifications for the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. In order to receive the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, you did not need to go to war; you only needed to be ``placed in such a position that in the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, hostile action by foreign Armed Forces was imminent even though it does not materialize.'' However, to earn the Kosovo Campaign Medal, the standard was higher. A military member was required to: Be engaged in actual combat or duty that is equally hazardous as combat duty, during the Operation with armed opposition, regardless of time in the Area of Engagement. Or while participating in the Operation regardless of time [the service member] is wounded or injured or requires medical evacuation from the Area of Engagement. Many within the military agree there is a difference. According to the Army Times, and let me quote their statement, they say: Campaign medals help to establish immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit. An expeditionary medal like the Global War on Terrorism Medal does not necessarily denote the individual with that medal has ever been involved in combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat. Campaign medals matter. Let me give another quotation here. When a marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and physical fitness score, the first to see where he has been, the second to see if he can hang [tough]. They know what you have done and how serious you are. . . . If you are a good marine, people are going to award you when it comes time. . . . That is the statement of a sergeant, as quoted in the Army Times. In my view it is time we agreed with the rank and file in the military, recognize the sacrifice of our young men and women who are fighting to assist in Iraq, including great Americans such as Army SP Joseph Hudson from my home State, from Alamogordo, NM, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson several months ago being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us whose sons and daughters were united in worrying about Specialist Hudson's family--and the entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated--that same circumstance has played out with regard to many other men and women who have served and are continuing to serve our Nation in those conflicts. We have also asked a great deal from the Reserve and National Guard forces in our States. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 guard and reservists currently on active duty. In my view it is absolutely essential we go ahead and act on this legislation. I know there may be some who say this legislation has been incorporated, or the same provisions have been incorporated in the Defense authorization bill which will be considered on the Senate floor next week, and therefore we need not take action today. The problem with dealing with it on the Defense authorization bill as part of the Defense authorization bill is all of us who have been around the Senate know that bill will not get to the President's desk for signature until late this summer or maybe fall. What I am urging is we take the bill the House has passed unanimously, without a dissenting vote, we pass that same legislation, and send it to the President for signature, so these two campaign medals, one for Iraq and one for Afghanistan, can begin to be awarded to these brave men and women. I hope we can get the needed clearance on the Republican side. All Democratic Senators have agreed to this course of action so we can bring up this legislation and pass it. I am informed there is objection at this point; at least clearance has not been achieved. I hope that can be remedied and we can act on this bill before we leave town this week. I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am very pleased that Senator Santorum and I were able to reach agreement on this amendment. The Paperwork Reduction Demo would provide up to 15 States with the opportunity to develop innovative methods of reducing burdensome paperwork so that teachers can spend more time teaching and improving educational and functional outcomes for children with disabilities. At the same time, it protects a child's right to a free appropriate public education, and the procedural safeguards necessary to ensure this right. IDEA is sometimes seen as a controversial piece of legislation. It is a unique blend of civil rights law and State grant program, and as a result, often pits the constitutional rights of children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education against the flexibility teachers need to teach. I believe this amendment strikes a good, fair balance. As we reauthorize IDEA, it is important to note that next week, this country will be celebrating 50 years of public school desegregation. In the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education, Chief Justice Warren wrote that ``in the field of public education, the doctrine of `separate but equal' has no place.'' This decision literally opened the doors of our public schools to all children, regardless of race. The doors to a public education, however, did not open quite so quickly for children with disabilities. Twenty years after the decision in Brown, children with disabilities were still being segregated. In the 1970s schools in America educated only one in five students with disabilities. More than 1 million students were excluded from public schools, and another 3.5 million did not receive appropriate services. Many States had laws excluding certain students, including those who were blind, deaf, or labeled. ``emotionally disturbed'' or ``mentally retarded.'' The likelihood of exclusive was significantly greater for children with disabilities living in low-income, ethnic and racial minority, or rural communities. Parents, however, began asserting their children's rights to attend public schools, using the same equal protection arguments used on behalf of the African American children in Brown: the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees their children and equal protection under the law. Congress responded, and in 1975, enacted the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, now known as IDEA. Recognizing the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law, Congress created the statutory right to a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. I believe we all recognize the challenges of providing teachers with enough flexibility so they can do their job while ensuring that the constitutional protections afforded to children with disabilities remain intact. We also must continue to hold our States accountable for educational outcomes of our children. I think this amendment meets that challenge, and I am pleased to support it. I think the underlying bill, S. 1248, also achieves the goal of balancing the interests of our teachers and schools with the interests of improving achievement for and protecting the right of children with disabilities and their families. This bill makes it simpler for teachers and schools to teach children with disabilities in many ways. For example, the bill: simplifies the discipline provisions and makes it easier for schools to administer the law; provides new opportunities for schools and parents to resolve disputes equitably; substantially reduces paperwork in many ways, including, of course, by allowing a number of States to waive paperwork burdens in accordance with this amendment; increases local flexibility and control of resources by allowing school districts that are in compliance with the law to use from 8 percent up to 25 percent of their Federal funds for local priorities; and authorizes local school districts to use up to 15 percent of their Federal IDEA funds to support students without disabilities in grades K-12 who require additional academic and behavioral supports to succeed in the general education curriculum. The bill also makes significant improvements for children and their families. For example, it; emphasizes the goal of improving academic achievement and functional performance within a child's IEP; ensures that children with disabilities are included in the accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind provides the Secretary of Education and the States with greater authority and tools to implement, monitor, and enforce the law; provides resources to States to support teacher preparation and professional development program; improves parental involvement; improves transition services to help students begin planning for life after high school; provides earlier access to services; improves early intervention and preschool programs; and ensures positive behavioral interventions and supports are in place for a child whose behavior impedes the child's ability to learn. We must ensure that children with disabilities have access to, and succeed in, the general education curriculum. I am disappointed that this body did not approve full funding of IDEA, but I believe this bill goes a long way in providing the tools, resources, and the flexibility to achieve this goal. I am pleased to support this bill and this amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation entitled the ``Medicare Assurance of Rx Transitional Assistance Act of 2004'' with Senators Lincoln, Daschle, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, and Clinton. The bill would assure that all 700,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Savings Program (MSP) receive the $600 in transitional assistance in 2005 and 2006 available to them through passage of last year's Medicare prescription drug bill. On April 2, 2004, I wrote a letter with 10 other senators to Health and Human Services Department Secretary Tommy Thompson urging his department to automatically enroll all MSP beneficiaries, which are those low-income people currently enrolled in State Medicaid programs to assist them with Medicare out-of-pocket expenses, into a Medicare drug discount card in order to receive the $600 subsidy available under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). In light of the fact that there is growing evidence that the savings offered via the drug discount card may be either minimal or illusory, the only clear benefit is the $600 in transitional assistance that is offered to individuals whose income is less than $12,569 this year or to married couples whose income is less than $16,862. For those MSP beneficiaries who do not have prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to assure that they will receive the $600 subsidy that was intended for them. When the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that they would enroll 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 in transitional assistance into the drug discount card. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expects a total of 5 million of the 7 million eligible to enroll, including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in New Mexico who would be eligible. Under CMS's assumptions, these beneficiaries would save a total of $5 billion nationally and $35 million in New Mexico over the 2-year period. Unfortunately, due to a poor advertising campaign which has been criticized by the General Accounting Office where ads have run in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and The Hill, which are not normally subscribed to by low-income senior citizens or people with disabilities, very few people even know the $600 subsidy exists. According to a recent national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the Medicare prescription drug bill. It is hard to believe that 65 percent of those eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know it exists. Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for auto-enrollment, as just two weeks ago the agency issued guidance for how state pharmacy assistance programs, or SPAPs, can automatically enroll their members who have income below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance. Second, CMS created a standardized enrollment form for low- income assistance to be accepted by all companies offering Medicare drug discount cards. Now, CMS can take a third step to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. Although I believe CMS has the authority to take this third step on its own, the legislation I am introducing today would clarify and ensure low-income seniors and people with disabilities receive the transitional assistance promised them by the Administration and Congress. As the Medicare Rights Center asks, ``Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?'' Some in CMS have argued that this might somehow limit the ``choice'' of a low-income Medicare beneficiary. this stated concern is inaccurate, however. As the Medicare Rights Center adds, ``Nothing would prevent members of MSPs from voluntarily enrolling in the low- income assistance and picking a drug discount card before automatic enrollment began. Even once enrolled in the transitional assistance, individuals would enjoy access to the same broad range of prescription drugs, since the $600 in annual assistance is not limited to the medicines on any specific card's formulary.'' As for the value of having the ``choice'' of choosing among the 73 competing drug cards, that is far less valuable than insuring that people get the $600 subsidy. According to a story in this morning's New York Times entitled ``73 Options for Medicare Plan Fuel Chaos, Not Prescriptions,'' that highlights that for many retirees the plethora of discount cards is complicated, overwhelming, and not too helpful. Florence Daniels, an 85 year-old retired engineer, says she cannot use the government website to compare drug costs because she cannot afford a computer. She said, ``I'm trying to absorb all the information, but it's ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, it's scary. If there was a single card and it was administered by Medicare, and it got the cost of drugs down--wonderful, marvelous. But with these cards, the only thing we know is that we'll have to pay money to other people to administer what we can get and can't get.'' The interim final rule made available on December 10, 2003, describes a process where low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to apply for assistance with one of the newly established drug discount cards. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities that are very sick, have cognitive and mental illnesses, and do not have access to or comfort with the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that they could benefit from unless we act. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what ``choice'' automatic enrollment would take away at that point? Many low-income seniors or the disabled will not even be aware of the drug cards or the $600 subsidy for which they qualify. As a result, by mid-August, either CMS or the states should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling them into the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not ``choice'' but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they qualify for and could receive. As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forego needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the eligible low-income beneficiaries will sign up, that goal will not be met unless some proactive steps are taken. Our goal should be to leave none of our Nation's low-income seniors and people with disabilities behind. Anything less should be considered unacceptable. While some of the proponents of the drug discount card have been critical of those that have questioned whether the drug discount card offers real discounts, they needlessly have tried to make this a partisan issue when it is not. There are legitimate and important public policy questions as to how effective the prescription drug discount card will be. However, no matter whether you think the card offers real savings or not, everybody should be able to agree on the point that the $600 subsidy should be provided to as many low-income Medicare beneficiaries as possible. As a result, I once again call upon the Administration to take this important step itself. If it fails to do so, I hope that congressional leadership will see fit to move this legislation as quickly as possible. There is over $1 billion in prescription drug assistance for many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the April 2, 2004, letter to Secretary Thompson, today's New York Times article I cited in my statement, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation entitled the ``Medicare Assurance of Rx Transitional Assistance Act of 2004'' with Senators Lincoln, Daschle, Lautenberg, Stabenow, Kennedy, and Clinton. The bill would assure that all 700,000 low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are currently enrolled in a Medicare Savings Program (MSP) receive the $600 in transitional assistance in 2005 and 2006 available to them through passage of last year's Medicare prescription drug bill. On April 2, 2004, I wrote a letter with 10 other senators to Health and Human Services Department Secretary Tommy Thompson urging his department to automatically enroll all MSP beneficiaries, which are those low-income people currently enrolled in State Medicaid programs to assist them with Medicare out-of-pocket expenses, into a Medicare drug discount card in order to receive the $600 subsidy available under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA). In light of the fact that there is growing evidence that the savings offered via the drug discount card may be either minimal or illusory, the only clear benefit is the $600 in transitional assistance that is offered to individuals whose income is less than $12,569 this year or to married couples whose income is less than $16,862. For those MSP beneficiaries who do not have prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to assure that they will receive the $600 subsidy that was intended for them. When the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that they would enroll 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 in transitional assistance into the drug discount card. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expects a total of 5 million of the 7 million eligible to enroll, including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in New Mexico who would be eligible. Under CMS's assumptions, these beneficiaries would save a total of $5 billion nationally and $35 million in New Mexico over the 2-year period. Unfortunately, due to a poor advertising campaign which has been criticized by the General Accounting Office where ads have run in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and The Hill, which are not normally subscribed to by low-income senior citizens or people with disabilities, very few people even know the $600 subsidy exists. According to a recent national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the Medicare prescription drug bill. It is hard to believe that 65 percent of those eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know it exists. Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for auto-enrollment, as just two weeks ago the agency issued guidance for how state pharmacy assistance programs, or SPAPs, can automatically enroll their members who have income below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance. Second, CMS created a standardized enrollment form for low- income assistance to be accepted by all companies offering Medicare drug discount cards. Now, CMS can take a third step to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. Although I believe CMS has the authority to take this third step on its own, the legislation I am introducing today would clarify and ensure low-income seniors and people with disabilities receive the transitional assistance promised them by the Administration and Congress. As the Medicare Rights Center asks, ``Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?'' Some in CMS have argued that this might somehow limit the ``choice'' of a low-income Medicare beneficiary. this stated concern is inaccurate, however. As the Medicare Rights Center adds, ``Nothing would prevent members of MSPs from voluntarily enrolling in the low- income assistance and picking a drug discount card before automatic enrollment began. Even once enrolled in the transitional assistance, individuals would enjoy access to the same broad range of prescription drugs, since the $600 in annual assistance is not limited to the medicines on any specific card's formulary.'' As for the value of having the ``choice'' of choosing among the 73 competing drug cards, that is far less valuable than insuring that people get the $600 subsidy. According to a story in this morning's New York Times entitled ``73 Options for Medicare Plan Fuel Chaos, Not Prescriptions,'' that highlights that for many retirees the plethora of discount cards is complicated, overwhelming, and not too helpful. Florence Daniels, an 85 year-old retired engineer, says she cannot use the government website to compare drug costs because she cannot afford a computer. She said, ``I'm trying to absorb all the information, but it's ridiculous. Not just ridiculous, it's scary. If there was a single card and it was administered by Medicare, and it got the cost of drugs down--wonderful, marvelous. But with these cards, the only thing we know is that we'll have to pay money to other people to administer what we can get and can't get.'' The interim final rule made available on December 10, 2003, describes a process where low-income Medicare beneficiaries will have to apply for assistance with one of the newly established drug discount cards. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities that are very sick, have cognitive and mental illnesses, and do not have access to or comfort with the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that they could benefit from unless we act. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what ``choice'' automatic enrollment would take away at that point? Many low-income seniors or the disabled will not even be aware of the drug cards or the $600 subsidy for which they qualify. As a result, by mid-August, either CMS or the states should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling them into the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not ``choice'' but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they qualify for and could receive. As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forego needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the eligible low-income beneficiaries will sign up, that goal will not be met unless some proactive steps are taken. Our goal should be to leave none of our Nation's low-income seniors and people with disabilities behind. Anything less should be considered unacceptable. While some of the proponents of the drug discount card have been critical of those that have questioned whether the drug discount card offers real discounts, they needlessly have tried to make this a partisan issue when it is not. There are legitimate and important public policy questions as to how effective the prescription drug discount card will be. However, no matter whether you think the card offers real savings or not, everybody should be able to agree on the point that the $600 subsidy should be provided to as many low-income Medicare beneficiaries as possible. As a result, I once again call upon the Administration to take this important step itself. If it fails to do so, I hope that congressional leadership will see fit to move this legislation as quickly as possible. There is over $1 billion in prescription drug assistance for many of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the April 2, 2004, letter to Secretary Thompson, today's New York Times article I cited in my statement, and the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I once again raise my concerns with Section 207 of the Pension Funding Equity Act that passed the Senate on April 8 and was signed into law on April 10. This provision grants a retroactive antitrust exemption to the graduate medical education residency matching program, a subject that is entirely unrelated to the pension bill and never received a full consideration by the normal processes of this body. My concerns about that provision are simple. First, I do not think that exemptions from this nation's antitrust laws should be lightly given. Second, I think the process by which this exemption was given-- without any opportunity for hearing before the appropriate committees or full and real consideration by this body--was improper. Finally, I am concerned about the correct interpretation of the language as to the scope of the immunity. As I stated in the floor debate on the pension bill, I believe that the language of subsection 207(b)(3) makes clear that the exemption from the antitrust laws granted by this legislation is limited; and that if there is a claim of price-fixing--which is prohibited by section one of the Sherman Act--then the provisions of subsection 207(b)(2) do not apply. Even though my right to file an amendment was reserved on this bill, I have now lost that right as my amendment is no longer in order now that cloture has been invoked. Having lost this right, I will seek a future opportunity to raise this issue before this body.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Montana. As always, he is generous in yielding to other Members on these issues. I also join the previous two speakers in opposing the amendment of the Senator from Arizona. The energy tax incentives that are part of this bill is a package of incentives that we reported out of the Finance Committee and added to the Energy bill essentially in the same form we have in the 107th Congress, and we have done it again in the 108th Congress. It is my strong belief that there is broad bipartisan support in the Senate for this set of energy tax provisions. I cannot tell you that every single one of them is exactly as I would want it to be, but there are incentives to encourage more use of renewable energy, to encourage continued production of oil and gas and increase production in some cases, to provide incentives for a shift toward more use of hybrid cars and advance vehicles. All of those items are positive. As far as renewable energy is concerned, one very important provision contained in this bill that relates to my State and many States is the extension of the tax credit--1.8 cents per kilowatt hour tax credit-- for wind energy and other types of renewable energy. There are many wind energy projects that are ready to go around this country; people are waiting to see whether Congress will go ahead and extend this production tax credit for renewable energy that covers them. I think this is a good policy. We need to do that as part of this bill. There are other provisions that provide incentives for energy- efficient homes, energy-efficient commercial buildings. They provide incentives for efficient appliances, smart meters which consumers can use to reduce their use of energy. There are a great many provisions in this bill that I believe would be useful and would move us in the right direction. This is not a silver bullet. This does not solve our energy problems. I do not want to represent that to anyone. These are, on balance, very positive actions that we can take, and this clearly, in my mind, is some of the most useful language that we are proposing to enact as part of this overall bill. Mr. President, I appreciate the chance to speak. I appreciate my colleagues allowing me to go ahead of them, particularly the Senator from Idaho, who yielded time to me. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the state of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague Senator Domenici to introduce a bill to designate the United States Courthouse in Santa Fe, NM as the ``Honorable Santiago E. Campos United States Courthouse.'' Santiago Campos was appointed to the Federal Bench in 1978 by President Jimmy Carter and was the first Hispanic Federal judge in New Mexico. He held the title of Chief U.S. District Judge from February 5, 1987 to December 31, 1989 and took senior status in 1992. Judge Campos was a dedicated and passionate public servant who spent most of his life committed to working for the people of New Mexico and our Nation. He served as a seaman first class in the United States Navy from 1944 to 1946, as the Assistant Attorney General and then First Assistant Attorney General of New Mexico from 1954 to 1957, and as a district court judge from 1971 to 1978 in the First Judicial District in the state of New Mexico. He was the prime mover in reestablishing Federal court judicial activity in Santa Fe and had his chambers in the courthouse there for over 22 years. For his dedication to the State, Judge Campos received distinguished achievement awards in 1993 from both the State Bar of New Mexico and the University of New Mexico. Sadly, Judge Campos passed away January 20, 2001 after a long battle with cancer. Judge Campos was an extraordinary jurist and served as a role model and mentor to others in New Mexico. He was admired and respected by all that knew him. I believe that it would be an appropriate tribute to Judge Campos to have the courthouse in Santa Fe bear his name. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I speak in strong support of the trade adjustment assistance amendment to the JOBS Act. I will keep my comments short and to the point. Although there continues to be a significant debate in Congress concerning the efficacy of the administration's economic policies, I believe the majority of my colleagues agree on one thing: training for American workers in critical technologies remains the key to our economic security. It is undeniable that the process of globalization has created dramatic shifts in the job opportunities available for American workers. It is unwise to assume the labor market will adjust by itself. I firmly believe that Congress must look carefully at where we are going and what we should be doing to remain competitive in the future. Two years ago the Senate passed an expanded Trade Adjustment Assistance Program as part of the Trade Act of 2002. I introduced that trade adjustment assistance legislation with Senators Baucus, Daschle, Rockefeller, and a number of other colleagues as original co-sponsors. Included in that legislation were a range of provisions that we considered to be essential to any effective TAA system--TAA for service workers, TAA for shifts in production to all countries, TAA for communities, TAA data collection, wage insurance, significant health care coverage for workers, and so on. Unfortunately, all of these provisions were either outright deleted or seriously narrowed when the legislation went to conference. The amendment today remedies that mistake. It recognizes that the United States does face an immediate problem related to negative impacts from trade and we need to better prepare workers for the future. Significantly, it recognizes that long-term trade policies have short-term costs for Americans and puts in place a coherent strategy to give them the skills required for job security. I have said this before and I say it again because it matters: Contrary to the assertions of some of my colleagues, we cannot measure the success of our trade policy only by the cost of the products we buy. We also have to look at whether our workers are more economically secure. By this I mean whether they have a high-wage job, whether they can buy a home, whether they can afford an education for their children, whether they can afford health insurance, and whether they have retirement security. Without these things, we are poor by any measure. I have always argued that while strong trade agreements lie at the core of a coherent trade strategy, an effective TAA program is essential for our country. It is a fair and appropriate approach for those American workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade. American workers are not looking for handouts. They are looking for a step-up to something better. They are looking for a chance to provide for their families and contribute to our country's economic welfare. This amendment offers them a chance to do just that. It is common sense, and it is the least we can do for our neighbors and friends back home. It is time to do what has to be done to get this legislation passed. There is too much at stake for American workers and communities to wait any longer.

Mr. BINGAMAN

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

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. That is a sad statement because I can remember a decade ago when the United States was the unrivaled leader in high-end computing. We need to do much better in this field. Senator Lamar Alexander and I have introduced the High-End Computing Revitalization Act. I hope that the leadership in the Senate will see fit to move this legislation this year, and that we will receive strong support from our colleagues. Nanotechnology is another area. Although Congress passed a nanotechnology bill last year, and the President signed the bill with great fanfare, the truth is, we are not putting the needed funding into it. The administration has not requested sufficient funding. We are not committing the money. This is another major shortfall. The next specific area I believe we need to target is next-generation lighting. I have spoken several times about that on the Senate floor. Semiconductor lighting has the promise to greatly increase the efficiency of lighting devices and also to create an enormous number of jobs. The estimate is this will be a $12 billion per year industry for these devices in the future. The question is, where will the leadership be in developing these devices? Will we maintain some of that leadership in this country? And where will the high-wage jobs be created by this? I hope those jobs will be created in the United States, but Congress needs to act to ensure that. A second area deals with the training of scientists and engineers. An enormous amount needs to be done to better prepare our own students for careers in these fields. We do too little in those areas. We need to do better. We now have the added concern that the foreign students who have traditionally come here to study are, first, finding visa problems that keep them from coming here; and, second, are deciding not to stay once they complete their education but go back to their home country. This is a precursor to the shifting of more and more research and development activity out of this country and into other countries around the world, which I think is a very bad trend for our economic future. The third area is infrastructure. The National Science Foundation estimates there are roughly $10 billion of unfilled needs for science and engineering facilities at universities. Unfortunately, the system we have in Congress today to fund these needs is through random, uncoordinated earmarks to appropriations bills. This is totally unacceptable. We need a merit-oriented solution that involves a look at the merits of the request and the need, and also the commitment that State and local governments are willing to make to creating this infrastructure. The fourth area is finance. We need public policies and strategies to expand the pool of risk capital for entrepreneurial investment. A fifth strategy is public-private sector interactions. We need to fully fund the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. The administration's request that we zero-fund the Advanced Technology Program is totally wrongheaded, in my view, and clearly needs to be rejected by this Congress. We should have the Federal Government take a stronger role in supporting science parks and incubators around this country as well. The final area I would mention is regulation and trade policy. We need to recognize the strategic importance of legal or regulatory structures to high-technology industries. We need to increase the efforts to protect intellectual property, to support fair competition regimes, to enforce legitimacy and transparency in the global market system, and to assure access by U.S. companies to these markets. We need to spend some time better monitoring and being sure we are getting fair treatment under the trade agreements we have already entered into instead of rushing forward pellmell trying to find new agreements we can sign. We need to focus on export promotion. There is way too little attention to export promotion. We need to focus on assistance programs for those people who are displaced and those communities that are damaged by increased trade. The current administration and, unfortunately, the Congress in the last few years have not done what needed to be done in this area. We have no formal science and technology policy. The administration has undermanned and seemingly neglected the Office of Science and Technology Policy. In previous remarks to the Senate, I have gone through a list of the proposed cuts by this administration to basic science and applied research in the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Agriculture Department, in the transportation sector, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, the Advanced Technology Program in the Department of Commerce. These include: $660 million in cuts proposed for basic and applied research at the Department of Defense, the sort of research that has the greatest potential for dual use and effective spin-off to the civilian high- technology industries; $63 million in cuts for energy conservation R&D at the Department of Energy; $183 million in cuts for FY 2005 for agricultural research; $24 million in cuts for transportation research; and $68 million in cuts for the Department of Energy's Office of Science, a major supporter of basic physical sciences and engineering research-- we have 40 Democratic Senators and 15 Republicans on a letter asking for increased funding rather than cuts here--and; total elimination of the Advanced Technology Program at the Department of Commerce, a loss of $171 million for new technologies that otherwise would have been enabled and brought to commercial reality. This is a highly successful program praised by the national academies and even the President's own budget language, cut for short- sighted ideological reasons. For the sake of our future national competitiveness, we need to face up to the challenges and technological revolutions of the 21st century and ensure that the United States has an effective plan for taking them on. It would be my hope that the coming Presidential election will serve as an opportunity to reflect on the ineffective ways in which we are currently addressing these issues, and to put forth the case that we need a comprehensive change in our policies to ensure our future competitiveness. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the New York Times, May 3, 2004] U.S. Is Losing Its Dominance in the Sciences (By William J. Broad) The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in critical areas of science and innovation, according to federal and private experts who point to strong evidence like prizes awarded to Americans and the number of papers in major professional journals. Foreign advances in basic science now often rival or even exceed America's, apparently with little public awareness of the trend or its implications for jobs, industry, national security or the vigor of the nation's intellectual and cultural life. ``The rest of the world is catching up,'' said John E. Jankowski, a senior analyst at the National Science Foundation, the federal agency that tracks science trends. ``Science excellence is no longer the domain of just the U.S.'' Even analysts worried by the trend concede that an expansion of the world's brain trust, with new approaches, could invigorate the fight against disease, develop new sources of energy had wrestle with knotty environmental problems. But profits from the breakthroughs are likely to stay overseas, and this country will face competition for things like hiring scientific talent and getting space to showcase its work in top journals. One area of international competition involves patents. Americans still win large numbers of them, but the percentage is falling as foreigners, especially Asians, have become more active and in some fields have seized the innovation lead. The United States' share of its own industrial patents has fallen steadily over the decades and now stands at 52 percent. A more concrete decline can be seen in published research. Physical Review, a series of top physics journals, recently tracked a reversal in which American papers, in two decades, fell from the most to a minority. Last year the total was just 29 percent, down from 61 percent in 1983. China, said Martin Blume, the journals' editor, has surged ahead by submitting more than 1,000 papers a year. ``Other scientific publishers are seeing the same kind of thing,'' he added. Another downturn centers on the Nobel Prizes, an icon of scientific excellence. Traditionally, the United States, powered by heavy federal investments in basic research, the kind that pursue fundamental questions of nature, dominated the awards. But the American share, after peaking from the 1960's through the 1990's, has fallen in the 2000's to about half, 51 percent. The rest went to Britain, Japan, Russia, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland and New Zealand. ``We are in a new world, and it's increasingly going to be dominated by countries other than the United States,'' Denis Simon, dean of management and technology at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, recently said at a scientific meeting in Washington. Europe and Asia are ascendant, analysts say, even if their achievements go unnoticed in the United States. In March, for example, European scientists announced that one of their planetary probes had detected methane in the atmosphere of Mars--a possible sign that alien microbes live beneath the planet's surface. The finding made headlines from Paris to Melbourne. But most Americans, bombarded with images from America's own rovers successfully exploring the red planet, missed the foreign news. More aggressively, Europe is seeking to dominate particle physics by building the world's most powerful atom smasher, set for its debut in 2007. Its circular tunnel is 17 miles around. Science analysts say Asia's push for excellence promises to be even more challenging. ``It's unbelievable,'' Diana Hicks, chairwoman of the school of public policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology, said of Asia's growth in science and technical innovation. ``It's amazing to see these output numbers of papers and patents going up so fast.'' Analysts say comparative American declines are an inevitable result of rising standards of living around the globe. ``It's all in the ebb and flow of globalization,'' said Jack Fritz, a senior officer at the National Academy of Engineering, an advisory body to the federal government. He called the declines ``the next big thing we will have to adjust to.'' The rapidly changing American status has not gone unnoticed by politicians, with Democrats on the attack and the White House on the defensive. ``We stand at a pivotal moment,'' Tom Daschle, the Senate Democratic leader, recently said at a policy forum in Washington at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's top general science group. ``For all our past successes, there are disturbing signs that America's dominant position in the scientific world is being shaken.'' Mr. Daschle accused the Bush administration of weakening the nation's science base by failing to provide enough money for cutting-edge research. The president's science adviser, John H. Marburger III, who attended the forum, strongly denied that charge, saying in an interview that overall research budgets during the Bush administration have soared to record highs and that the science establishment is strong. ``The sky is not falling on science,'' Dr. Marburger said. ``Maybe there are some clouds--no, things that need attention.'' Any problems, he added, are within the power of the United States to deal with in a way that maintains the vitality of the research enterprise. Analysts say Mr. Daschle and Dr. Marburger can both supply data that supports their positions. A major question, they add, is whether big spending automatically translates into big rewards, as it did in the past. During the cold war, the government pumped more than $1 trillion into research, with a wealth of benefits including lasers, longer life expectancies, men on the Moon and the prestige of many Nobel Prizes. Today, federal research budgets are still record highs; this year more than $126 billion has been allocated to research. Moreover, American industry makes extensive use of federal research in producing its innovations and adds its own vast sums of money, the combination dwarfing that of any other nation or bloc. But the edifice is less formidable than it seems, in part because of the nation's costly and unique military role. This year, financing for military research hit $66 billion, higher in fixed dollars than in the cold war and far higher than in any other country. For all the spending, the United States began to experience a number of scientific declines in the 1990's, boom years for the nation's overall economy. For instance, scientific papers by Americans peaked in 1992 and then fell roughly 10 percent, the National Science Foundation reports. Why? Many analysts point to rising foreign competition, as does the European Commission, which also monitors global science trends. In a study last year, the commission said Europe surpassed the United States in the mid-1990's as the world's largest producer of scientific literature. Dr. Hicks of Georgia Tech said that American scientists, when top journals reject their papers, usually have no idea that rising foreign competition may be to blame. On another front, the numbers of new doctorates in the sciences peaked in 1998 and then fell 5 percent the next year, a loss of more than 1,300 new scientists, according to the foundation. A minor exodus also hit one of the hidden strengths of American science: vast ranks of bright foreigners. In a significant shift of demographics, they began to leave in what experts call a reverse brain drain. After peaking in the mid-1990's, the number of doctoral students from China, India and Taiwan with plans to stay in the United States began to fall by the hundreds, according to the foundation. These declines are important, analysts say, because new scientific knowledge is an engine of the American Economy and technical innovation, its influence evident in everything from potent drugs to fast computer chips. Patents are a main way that companies and inventors reap commercial rewards from their ideas and stay competitive in the marketplace while improving the lives of million. Foreigners outside the United States are playing an increasingly important role in these expressions of industrial creativity. In a recent study, CHI Research, a consulting firm in Haddon Height, N.J., found that researchers in Japan, Taiwan and South Korea now account for more than a quarter of all United States industrial patents awarded each year, generating revenue for their own countries and limiting it in the United States. Moreover, their growth rates are rapid. Between 1980 and 2003, South Korea went from 0 to 2 percent of the total, Taiwan from 0 to 3 percent and Japan from 12 to 21 percent. ``It's not just lots of patents,'' Francis Narin, CHI's president, said of the Asian rise. ``It's lots of good patents that have a high impact,'' as measured by how often subsequent patents cite them. Recently, Dr. Narin added, both Taiwan and Singapore surged ahead of the United States in the overall number of citations. Singapore's patents include ones in chemicals, semiconductors, electronics and industrial tools. China represents the next wave, experts agree, its scientific rise still too fresh to show up in most statistics but already apparent. Dr. Simon of Rensselaer said that about 400 foreign companies had recently set up research centers in China, with General Electric, for instance, doing important work there on medical scanners, which means fewer skilled jobs in America. Ross Armbrecht, president of the Industrial Research Institute, a nonprofit group in Washington that represents large American companies, said businesses were going to China not just because of low costs but to take advantage of China's growing scientific excellence. ``It's frightening,'' Dr. Armbrecht said. ``But you've got to go where the horses are.'' An eventual danger, he added, is the slow loss of intellectual property as local professionals start their own businesses with what they have learned from American companies. For the United States, future trends look challenging, many analysts say. In a report last month, the American Association for the Advancement of Science said the Bush administration, to live up to its pledge to halve the nation's budget deficit in the next five years, would cut research financing at 21 of 24 Federal agencies--all those that do or finance science except those involved in space and national and domestic security. More troubling to some experts is the likelihood of an accelerating loss of quality scientists. Applications from foreign graduate students to research universities are down by a quarter, experts say, partly because of the Federal government's tightening of visas after the 2001 terrorist attacks. Shirley Ann Jackson, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told the recent forum audience that the drop in foreign students, the apparently declining interest of young Americans in science careers and the aging of the technical work force were, taken together, a perilous combination of developments. ``Who,'' she asked, ``will do the science of this millennium?'' Several private groups, including the Council on Competitiveness, an organization in Washington that seeks policies to promote industrial vigor, have begun to agitate for wide debate and action. ``Many other countries have realized that science and technology are key to economic growth and prosperity,'' said Jennifer Bond, the council's vice president for international affairs. ``They're catching up to us,'' she said, warning Americans not to ``rest on our laurels.''

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that a speech Senator Daschle gave 2 weeks ago to the American Association for the Advancement of Science be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to continue for another 5 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, there are a couple of news events in the last 24 hours or 48 hours that I thought deserve some comment. Let me first talk a moment about the atrocities and abuse of enemy combatants--prisoners--in Iraq which has been a major concern. Many of my colleagues have commented upon the horrific images that have come out on television and in the papers. I have not seen as yet many comments about the Pentagon's response. That is what I wanted to comment on briefly. Officials within the Department of Defense have known at least since January that prisoners held as enemy combatants in Iraq have been subject to maltreatment, and to physical and sexual abuse. We know this because in January the Department of Defense relieved the camp commander of her duties and ordered an investigation. The investigation was completed in February. The 54-page report that was issued, as I understand it, contains horrifying details about these abuses. Yesterday, on the CBS news program ``Face the Nation,'' Bob Schieffer, the host of that program, interviewed General Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Bob Schieffer asked about this report. He said, ``There is a 53-page report that Sy Hersh of the New Yorker has obtained which says that the situation was even worse. How could this have happened? What is going to occur? The part that I thought was most disturbing was the response by General Myers to the question: ``Why would you not have seen the report?'' The investigation was carried out in December. The report was completed in February. ``Why would you not have seen report?'' And the response was: ``It is working its way up, up the chain. I will see this report. I am sure it just hasn't come to me yet.'' This is an unacceptable response. If this is a concern of our Department of Defense, if this is a concern of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, how can he state in May that he has not seen the report or demanded to see the report, and that it is, as he understands it, ``working its way up'' and will eventually come to him? I don't think that is the level of concern we ought to be demonstrating in our Department of Defense for this kind of circumstance. It is not the level of concern the American people would expect of their military commanders for this type of conduct. I would think if the general believed swift action was required he might have directed those in the command--in his command and, of course, that is everyone in the military--to get that report to him immediately upon completion, and to give him concrete action items they were intending to take to deal with the situation. Leadership and responsibility flow from the top in our military. We all know that. For the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to handle this matter in this way and indicate that, on May first, he has not seen the report but he assumes it is working its way up through the chain of command, demonstrates to all members of the military that humane treatment of prisoners is not a priority for our military in Iraq. That is unacceptable. That is unacceptable to this Senator. It is unacceptable, I believe, to the American public. I hope we can get a different reaction from the Pentagon and a more acceptable reaction from the Pentagon to this horrific state of affairs that has come to our attention.