Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for up to 30 minutes from the time under the control of Senator Dorgan, to be followed by Senator Martinez for up to 10 minutes from the time under the control of Senator Grassley.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by commending, again, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Grassley, and Senator Baucus, the ranking Democrat, and members of that committee. It is a very important committee of the Senate, obviously. They are charged with the responsibility of dealing with trade agreements. The implications of these trade agreements obviously go beyond just the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. It can be argued, I think very correctly, that these agreements have huge foreign policy implications, national security implications as well as, obviously, labor implications. So the Finance Committee is asked to grapple with very compelling issues that touch on a lot of other subject matters when they deal with it. I rise today to speak about this Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, known as the CAFTA-DR agreement. Yesterday evening, I came to the floor to express my hopes that this agreement could be strengthened in the waning hours before a vote on its implementing legislation. I did so because I very much want to support this agreement. Let me explain why again. Many of my colleagues, I suppose, know the reason. As long as I have been a Member of this body I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I have, for most of those years, been either the chairman or the ranking Democrat of the subcommittee dealing with Latin America. My colleagues, many of them, know as well that some 39 years ago, as I finished my college education, I joined the Peace Corps and traveled to the Dominican Republic where, for about 2 years I served as a Peace Corps volunteer in the wonderful mountain village of Bonito Moncion, not very far from the Haitian border. I have a special affection for the Dominican Republic. The people of that small mountain village embraced me as one of their own. In fact, only a few weeks ago I traveled back to that mountain village of Moncion after a 24-year absence and spent a remarkable day with people I had known, who had such a wonderful impact on my life as a young Peace Corps volunteer. When I came to this body and went to the Congress in 1974, along with Paul Tsongas of Massachusetts, we were the first two former Peace Corps volunteers to be elected to the U.S. Congress. Paul Tsongas came to the Senate 2 years before I did. When I arrived here, we became the only Peace Corps volunteers to have served in this Senate. Today, I believe I am the only one to have had that privilege of being a volunteer in the Dominican Republic and to serve in this Senate. The countries of Central America I know well. I have traveled to all of them extensively over the years. I know the heads of states of each of these countries and have known virtually all of the heads of state over the last 24 years. It is with a great deal of personal interest, in addition to the subject matter interest, that draws me to this debate and to the Senate this afternoon. I have worked closely with many of these countries. As much as any Member of this Senate, I understand what a great boom a well-crafted agreement on trade can be to the people of Central America and for the Dominican Republic, as well as for we Americans. I don't expect CAFTA-DR agreement to be perfect. No trade agreement ever is. There are always matters either left unaddressed or under- addressed when we have these agreements. The question should be whether trade agreements, on balance, serve to protect American interests and lift up the countries that we are negotiating with, or whether they will lead us all in the opposite direction. That is why I welcome the efforts of my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, to strengthen the capacity of these nations of Central America and the Dominican Republic to effectively enforce and uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe the commitment by the administration to provide funds for the International Labor Organization, the ILO as it is called, in these CAFTA-DR countries is a step in the right direction. I commend my colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for pursuing this provision. I commend Ambassador Portman for accepting the idea. But to strengthen the effectiveness of the International Labor Organization in carrying out its work in Central America, I believe there also needs to be a clear understanding, before we vote on the CAFTA-DR agreement, of the freedom activity that the International Labor Organization must have if its efforts are going to be effective. After all, the problem is not just about capacity building, as important as that is, which was the focus of the agreement with our colleague from New Mexico, it must also, out of necessity, be about enforcement of those rights. That is why I met yesterday, at some length, with Ambassador Portman and his staff and contacted the ambassadors of the five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic to describe what I believe is needed to make the International Labor Organization initiative of this agreement a meaningful one. As my colleagues know, over the years, I have generally been a supporter of free-trade agreements. If properly constructed, I believe trade agreements are in the best long-term interests of the United States. That is because, in today's highly interconnected world, we must keep up and adjust to the changes around us if we are going to compete effectively. This great surge toward a globalized world economy has brought gains and losses here in our own country. Some industries have benefitted greatly; others have struggled to compete. On balance, I believe free trade has benefitted our country. But we have not done enough, especially during the past few years, to help ease the transition for those many Americans who are struggling. Globalization has affected other nations around the globe. From Latin America to India, Africa to China, no country has escaped the impact of this process. The difference is that while globalization has helped lift many nations, it has also left many others behind. In this hemisphere, the results have been mixed. Countries such as Brazil and Chile are doing quite well. Others have stagnated or, worse, even regressed. I put this in context for my colleagues when it comes to Central America and the Dominican Republic. When considering this debate and the conclusion of it, consider that one-third of the entire population of Latin America currently lives in poverty. In the nations south of the Rio Grande River, 128 million people survive on less than $2 a day; 50 million on less than $1 a day. That is more than a third of the entire population of these nations. In Central America alone, three out of every five citizens live in conditions of poverty. Two out of every five are indigent or in conditions of extreme poverty. In Nicaragua, for instance, there is widespread malnutrition and unemployment rates are way over 40 percent. Nicaragua is the second poorest nation in this hemisphere, with nearly half its population living on less than $1 a day. In Guatemala, the situation is also dire. Malnutrition rates are among the highest in the world. Life expectancy as well as infant and infant mortality rates are among the worst in this hemisphere. Illiteracy exceeds 30 percent and most people have less than 5 years of a formal education. But there is not only tremendous poverty in these nations, income and equality in Latin America is also one of the highest in the world. Consider that the richest 10 percent of all Latin Americans earn roughly 50 percent of the total national income in these nations; whereas the bottom 10 percent earn only 1.6 percent of income. Despite economic growth throughout the 1990s, unemployment in Latin America has actually increased. The Central American region has suffered greatly as a result of natural disasters. Hardly a year goes by that some natural tragedy does not occur in these nations. My colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti which last year cost thousands of people their lives and homes. There are repeated hurricanes that have hit Central America over the last decade and a half. In early 1993, after one of those hurricanes hit Nicaragua, I went down to work with the people of those nations to clear mud out of schools and impoverished communities. Bridges were wiped out, crops were lost, the country was devastated. In 1998, Hurricane Mitch, a category 5 storm, hit Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and El Salvador, killing 9,000 people and leaving more than 700,000 people in those four countries homeless. We are also talking about nations, many of which were almost ripped apart by brutal civil wars and political violence. Guatemala's troubled history dates back to 1954, when a military coup overthrew Guatemala's popularly elected president, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, triggering a bloody civil conflict that lasted more than 30 years. Guatemala's conflict was largely a struggle for land rights and resulted in the murder or disappearance of more than 200,000 people, many of them indigenous Mayans living in the highlands of Guatemala. Fortunately, this armed conflict ended in 1996, with the signing of the peace accords between the Guatemalan Government and the armed opposition, grouped together as the Guatemalan National Revolutionary Unit. In El Salvador, it was discontent over social inequalities, a poor economy and a repressive dictatorship that in 1980 finally ignited a civil war between a repressive military government and leftist guerilla groups who united under the Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front. During 12 years of that civil war, 75,000 Salvadorans, mostly civilians, were killed and thousands more fled to refugee camps in Honduras and many more made their way north to the United States as immigrants. The United States provided more than $5 billion in economic and military assistance to the Salvadoran Government over the course of that conflict. But it took the U.N. to broker a peace accord to end a conflict that military force failed to resolve. Nicaragua's story is almost somewhat similar. In 1979, the Sandinista National Liberation Front of Nicaragua overthrew the 40-year dictatorship of the Somoza family and took control. In 1981, the Reagan administration responded aggressively to regional concerns with respect to the leftist regime. The United States funded and organized the new paramilitary force which became known as the Contras. The Contra war, as it became known, lasted until 1988 and resulted in more than 25,000 deaths in that country and 700,000 refugees and displaced people. Although Honduras faced no serious civil conflict of its own, it served as a staging ground for efforts of the United States to fight the insurgencies in Guatemala and El Salvador and to overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government. Honduras's geographically central location made it a convenient base of operations for the Contras and a center of training and supply for the Salvadoran and Guatemalan militaries. Even democratic Costa Rica felt the ripple effects of its neighbors' conflicts as displaced persons from other countries took up residence in that nation. Finally, the governments of Central America courageously decided to take matters into their own hands. In 1987, without any real assistance from the United States, the Presidents of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Costa Rica negotiated and signed an agreement to create conditions for peace in Central America, which became known as the Esquipulas Agreement. That agreement marked a turning point for the people of Central America and created real possibilities for peace, reconciliation, and prosperity for the people of that region. Since 1990, the countries of the region have made progress. The guns have been silenced. There has been political reconciliation. There have been domestic or democratic elections. But still the region struggles for many of the root causes that sparked the civil conflicts in the first place: poverty and inequality and injustice. Taken individually or as a whole, this poverty, inequality, suffering, and political instability have severe implications. First, they threaten the political stability of Latin America. And I am very worried not only about this region but also other nations in the hemisphere that are democratic governments but are very fragile democracies. And second, by extension, they also threaten the national interests of the United States, as political instability did in the 1980s. To understand how this is possible, I would point to--and advise my colleagues, if they have the time, to read--a 2004 report by the United Nations Development Program. According to that report, progress in extending elective democracy across Latin America is threatened by ongoing social and economic turmoil. Most troubling, the report suggests that over 50 percent of the population of Latin America would be willing to sacrifice democratic government for real progress on economic and social fronts. That is a very frightening statistic. And it should make crystal clear the urgency of this situation. Two decades of democratic progress in our hemisphere are at risk. Certainly, strong trade relations remain a key to creating a healthy economy both here in the United States and throughout the region. But trade alone cannot address the myriad of challenges facing Latin America, where millions of citizens in this hemisphere remain marginalized by economic insecurity and social dislocation. And, sadly, the attention and foreign aid dollars of the United States have been diverted to other parts of the world in recent years. That is why I welcome the Bush administration's decision to reengage with the region and to strengthen economic ties by negotiating a regional free-trade agreement. I believe that the right kind of trade agreements can help these countries get on the proper course to stronger and more just societies. The question is whether, on balance, the agreement before us is that right kind of agreement. I stress the term ``agreement'' because it reminds us that these documents are about much more than free trade. They are about the worker who could lose his or her job. They are about the average citizen trying to provide for their families. And they are about social cohesion and political stability. These agreements are also about the future of a nation's economy. They are about protecting our national security. And they are about ensuring that the next generation will inherit a stronger foundation on which to build their futures. Or at least they should be. We, in the Congress need to decide if these agreements live up to these standards. As I said earlier, I have been, throughout my years here, a strong supporter of free-trade agreements. The case we have before us--of course, CAFTA-DR, deals with the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Honduras, El Salvador and Costa Rica. A meaningful agreement with these countries could, in my view, benefit the United States and the nations involved alike. For the most part, they need help. Poverty, corruption, social dislocation, and instability are all too familiar to the citizens of many of these nations. But the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement has some weaknesses, ones we tried to address over the last several days. Mr. President, I understand the sense of urgency the administration feels in having this agreement be decided upon in the waning hours before the Fourth of July recess. I regret, unfortunately, that we have to rush at this. But I understand why. If you do not have these agreements up under these time constraints, then they may not pass at all. So I appreciate the politics of why it is up under this shortened time-frame or up against the wall of this recess. That said, I regret we did not have a few more days. If we did have some more time I believe we might have been able to make some very important improvements to weaknesses in the current agreement. The most fundamental of these weaknesses I discussed last evening and I talked about at great length with Ambassador Portman yesterday. I also sent him a letter addressing the specificity of them; and that is, namely, the issue of labor laws in the CAFTA-Dominican Republic countries. When I speak of labor laws, I am speaking about the kinds of laws that these countries have enacted and about the enforcement of these laws. I am also speaking about current trade packages in this hemisphere that have been a major step forward to guarantee improvements in quality of life, creating wealth in these countries which, obviously, benefits us, as we want trade with nations that have people who can afford the cost of our goods and services. Both of these issues are critical components, I might add, to protecting Americans and to ensuring real progress is made in these nations. I would turn here to the issue of labor laws. According to the CAFTA- Dominican Republic agreement, signatory countries must simply enforce the labor laws of their own nations--whatever they may be--in order to be in compliance. Indeed, I would note that the Dominican Republic and all the Central American countries, except El Salvador, have ratified what the International Labor Organization refers to as its eight fundamental conventions on labor rights. El Salvador, I might add, has ratified six of the eight. And while El Salvador needs to be brought up to speed, other signatories' laws seem to be at least minimally sufficient to the task, in my view. Why then does the current arrangement, with respect to labor laws, weaken this agreement? Because of two things. First, it does not hold those countries to the same objective standards. In fact, the CAFTA-DR agreement would actually lower current standards. Second, it ignores the impact that a lack of objective standards could have on the region. Let me explain. Previous trade preference programs for the region--previous ones; this is not new ground; previous ones--provided that the President should at least take into account the extent to which the beneficiary countries provide internationally recognized workers' rights. This is not the case with the CAFTA-DR agreement. In addition, as currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would weaken standards that these countries have been living under through the Caribbean Basin Initiative and the Generalized System of Preferences, where these agreements are not required. So instead of asking them to do the same with the CAFTA-DR agreement--or more--we are actually asking them to do less. It is a step backwards. Under the current trade agreements in this region, trade benefits can be withdrawn if a country lowers its labor laws below international standards or simply fails to meet these standards. And they can be withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted workers rights that might not be protected under their laws. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, and the GSP, the right to file a complaint for violations of these rights is extended beyond just governments and to civil societies. But again, with this agreement, we exclude all of that. Under this agreement, governments will only have to enforce whatever laws they have on their own books at any given time. They will not be held to any international standards. That means the ocean floor is the limit, with respect to how weak these laws can get. Moreover, the lack of an objective standard here is troubling because it could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and companies play governments, one against the other, seeking lower labor standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation, in my view, could wreak havoc on civil societies in these countries, and it could also cost American workers their jobs. A second facet of the labor rights question deals with the issue of enforcement. As I said earlier, for the most part, CAFTA-DR nations have laws on their books. But they face a lack of resources, as well as domestic political opposition from influential people, which prevent them from enforcing these laws. Again, this is not about pointing the finger or accusing these government leaders of malice toward their workers. I don't believe that. I don't believe that is the case here either. I believe they actually want to do the right thing. I know these leaders. I respect them. But our neighbors to the south are democratic countries. And as in all democracies, they have to deal with powerful opposition interests. The question remains, will CAFTA-DR help these nations overcome this opposition to enforcement? In my view, it doesn't go nearly far enough to do so. That is why I met with Ambassador Portman yesterday to see if we could strengthen the prospects for enforcement. Laws that can't be enforced might as well not be there. The administration seems to hold the view that support for expanded trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core labor standards in developing countries. But, in fact, experts in this area from the well-respected Institute for International Economics have concluded that ``core labor standards support sustainable and broadly shared political, social, and economic development.'' The operative word being ``shared.'' Let me say clearly I believe this agreement is fixable. I wish it could have been fixed. Ambassador Portman and I met. We exchanged letters. We worked hard yesterday to try and see if we couldn't strengthen this agreement with respect to enforcement. What we sought was the following, exactly what exists in the Cambodian Agreement that was negotiated by the Clinton administration and renewed by the Bush administration, to their credit. There we said that the International Labor Organization ought to be able to make site visits to actually go to plants and industries to see whether the labor standards were being upheld. Under CAFTA-DR, all they can do is go to the labor ministries and ask them whether the laws are being enforced. Obviously, in most of these countries the labor ministries are political appointees. They are not likely to be critical of their own government's efforts. By not having any standard which all countries must meet, each country will be able to set the floor. When they do so, of course, the competition to have a lower floor to attract more industry from outside the country lowers the living standards for the very people I have described who are living under some of the worst conditions anywhere in the world. I am deeply troubled by this. I so much wanted to be for this agreement. I care so much about this region and what happens to these people. I would like nothing more than to be standing here today urging my colleagues to be supportive of this. This is not a minor point. It goes right to the heart of what we try to do with trade agreements; that is, to reduce these barriers, expand markets for our businesses and industries, create opportunities for additional job creation, and also to create and generate wealth in these countries so that in the long term, we can produce high value products, high value services, that are affordable in these countries. So trade agreements have worked both ways--expanding economic opportunities for ourselves and creating wealth and opportunity in the countries with whom we trade. That is why I supported NAFTA and the Jordanian Free Trade Agreement and others. Indeed, I have supported far more of these agreements than I have opposed. But with CAFTA-DR, we are stepping backwards in a region of the world that needs a commitment to lift up the quality of life for its citizens. I am not suggesting we could do it solely through this agreement, but you can begin to make a difference in these people's lives by insisting that they have to meet some minimum standards. This is what we should be saying: We want to do business in your country. We want to accept your products. We want to trade with you. But the small price we ask is that you have some basic standards for the people who are going to do the jobs. When you eliminate that, then you invite the kind of problems we are going to see with these people. I am terribly disappointed today. I had hoped I would be able to support this agreement. I wanted to be a part of this effort. I respect immensely the President inviting us down and talking about this. I raised the issue with him. I also respect Rob Portman. He is a good man. Obviously, he has the difficulty of dealing with all 535 of us, in both this Chamber and the other, to try and get the votes to pass these agreements. This agreement is probably going to be passed tonight. My hope was that we would be able to broaden the specter along bipartisan support for this agreement both here and in the other Chamber. Unfortunately, I don't believe that will be the case. Let me say to my colleagues: Even with the adoption of this agreement and the absence of these labor standards I feel so strongly about, it is my intention, through appropriate vehicles, to condition aid and other assistance on improving these standards in these countries. I will find one way or the other to try and improve them, to insist that these countries, in exchange for getting the kind of access to our markets, at the very least they ought to be required to improve the quality of life and the standards under which many of these people work. We stand today at a moment of great opportunity and great risk for this hemisphere. The past two decades have witnessed the rise of democratic governments in nations that have long languished under dictatorship of left or right. But this progress is endangered. Globalization and free trade promise to bring historic levels of prosperity to nations north and south. But economic and social conditions for millions of men and women continue to lag dangerously far behind, threatening what we have worked so hard to build. Through well-crafted trade agreements, the United States can enhance its own prosperity and lift other nations on a stable and democratic path. That is why I am so disappointed the administration wasn't able to explicitly support the efforts to give the ILO a greater role in the monitoring and verification process. I believe that in doing so, we would have significantly strengthened this agreement, especially given the troubled history of the region and the potential for mutual prosperity that a CAFTA-DR agreement held for all. Unfortunately, the agreement before us won't do that. Last night I sent Ambassador Portman a letter detailing proposals that have already been adopted in other agreements. This is not breaking new ground. I appreciate Ambassador Portman's response today in the letter he wrote back to me, but I regret that his letter included no real concrete commitment that the U.S. Government would guarantee the implementation that I am requesting--specifically, that the ILO would be granted unfettered access to workplaces, permitted to establish mechanisms for receiving and investigating matters related to ILO labor standards, to make private recommendations to worker and employer organizations and appropriate officials within each government, and to issue periodic public reports of its findings on matters of concern. Therefore, I am left to conclude that instead of breaking new ground and raising standards, the CAFTA-DR agreement is a step backwards from existing law. That fact saddens me deeply. This agreement will create a weaker set of standards that could very well negatively impact the people of this region, negatively impact American workers and our national security, and weaken democracy in these countries. Regrettably, I won't be able to support this agreement when it comes to a vote. I say this with a very heavy heart. But I will make a promise to the American people and to the people of these countries that I will work vigorously to ensure as we move forward with this agreement, workers' rights are protected and new avenues are explored for pursuing this goal. I hope at the end of the day, with all of the interests in this agreement, that our keeping the light shining on labor rights issues will make this agreement work. Because even though I can't support this agreement in its current form, I truly want to it work for all. I yield the floor.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005, legislation that will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries who are denied health-related benefits can appeal these denials in a meaningful way. Very simply, this initiative will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to timely, impartial, and in-person hearings before Administrative Law Judges. Sec. 931 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act requires the transfer of the Medicare appeals process from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A proposed rule recently put forth indicates that current HHS plans to bring about this transfer will significantly and negatively affect Medicare beneficiaries' ability to seek redress from the denial of benefits such as access to prescription medicines, home health services, and services provided at skilled nursing facilities. Specifically, the Administration's proposed transfer plan, slated to go into effect in only a handful of days on July 1, will reduce the number of sites where these appeal hearings can take place to four from the more than 140 sites currently operating nationwide. Today, Medicare beneficiaries that have filed coverage appeals are granted a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Under the proposed transfer plan, Medicare beneficiaries will now have their hearings heard via video- or teleconference (VTC) and will only be allowed to appear in person by request and if HHS determines that ``special or extraordinary circumstances exist.'' Moreover, beneficiaries granted an in-person hearing would not be assured that their cases would be heard within the 90-day window currently mandated by law. Lastly, the proposed transfer plan will endanger the independence and impartiality of Administrative Law Judges by requiring them to defer to program guidance provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rather than on the Medicare statute and regulations, as they currently do. Central to our system of justice is the right of aggrieved parties to appear before an impartial judge in person to have their cases heard. Appearing face-to-face before an impartial trier of fact is the best way to ensure that a full and fair hearing occurs. In person hearings allow parties to fully make their case. At the same time, they allow judges to best evaluate the demeanor and condition of the parties, and other aspects of a case. The Administration's proposed rule transferring the Medicare appeals process from SSA to HHS greatly endangers this right by gutting the current practice of guaranteeing the right of Medicare beneficiaries to appear in person before an ALJ when having their appeals heard and instead will now presume that these hearings will be heard via video- or teleconference. Often when we talk about the denial of Medicare benefits, we are talking about the denial of services that literally have the ability to save lives. Medicare provides a critical safety net for millions of elderly and disabled beneficiaries and the proposed transfer plan's almost wholesale reliance on novel VTC technology may endanger the ability of many Medicare beneficiaries to accurately and personally portray the severity of their own health conditions. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005 will ensure those Medicare beneficiaries that have filed coverage appeals have access to timely, impartial, and in-person hearings before Administrative Law Judges. Specifically, this initiative will ensure that Medicare appeals will be heard in person before an ALJ, as they presently are. While all Medicare beneficiaries will be entitled to appear in person for their hearing, any beneficiary may choose to have their hearing heard via video- or teleconference. The legislation that I introduce today is in no way designed to prevent the adoption of the promising technology represented by VTC. Rather, this initiative simply seeks to preserve the critically important ability of Medicare beneficiaries to appear before the very judges charged with hearing their coverage appeals. By preventing the great majority of Medicare beneficiaries from appearing in person before the judge hearing their Medicare appeals, the Administration's proposed plan will greatly harm their ability to accurately and completely present all of the facts relevant to their case. And while I understand that many Medicare beneficiaries will choose to have their appeals heard via either video- or teleconference, I believe that we must preserve for Medicare beneficiaries the ability to appear in person before a judge when their cases are heard. The legislation will also require that all Medicare coverage appeal hearings, regardless of whether a Medicare beneficiary appears in person or chooses to appear via video- or teleconference, will be heard within 90 days as mandated by the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000. All Medicare beneficiaries deserve to have their appeals heard in a timely manner regardless of whether their cases are heard in person or via utilizing VTC technology. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act will also address the Administration's plans to reduce the number of sites where Medicare appeal hearings may be heard in person from the more than 140 sites currently available to four. This legislation will require at least one site for the hearing of in-person Medicare appeals in each state, the District of Columbia, and territory, with the nation's five largest states featuring two hearing sites geographically distributed throughout the state. Lastly, this legislation will ensure the independence and impartiality of Administrative Law Judges by relieving them of the proposed transfer plan's mandate to grant ``substantial deference'' to CMS program guidance. Medicare beneficiaries appealing coverage decisions should be fully confident that the judges deciding their appeals are bound only by the merits of their case and not undue pressure from agency of administration interference. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Bingaman for joining me in sponsoring this important initiative. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act is also supported by a number of national and local organizations dedicated to preserving the continued ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access needed health care services. Endorsing the legislation that I introduce today are the Center for Medicare Advocacy located in my own state of Connecticut, the National Health Law Program, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the Medicare Advocacy Project of Vermont Legal Aid, the Medicare Advocacy Project of Greater Boston Legal Services, and the Senior Citizens' Law Office of Albuquerque, NM. In Congress we far too rarely have the opportunity to stave off problems before they occur. Rather, too often we are forced to involve ourselves in matters only after they have already wreaked havoc on the lives of our constituents. With passage of the Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005, we have the opportunity to avoid the adverse impact that the Administration's proposed transfer plan will likely have on Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation will preserve for our nation's 41 million Medicare beneficiaries the ability to timely appear in person before judges who will impartially determine which health care services they're entitled to receive under Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries deserve no less than the vital protections offered by this act and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this critically important initiative.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005, legislation that will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries who are denied health-related benefits can appeal these denials in a meaningful way. Very simply, this initiative will ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have access to timely, impartial, and in-person hearings before Administrative Law Judges. Sec. 931 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act requires the transfer of the Medicare appeals process from the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). A proposed rule recently put forth indicates that current HHS plans to bring about this transfer will significantly and negatively affect Medicare beneficiaries' ability to seek redress from the denial of benefits such as access to prescription medicines, home health services, and services provided at skilled nursing facilities. Specifically, the Administration's proposed transfer plan, slated to go into effect in only a handful of days on July 1, will reduce the number of sites where these appeal hearings can take place to four from the more than 140 sites currently operating nationwide. Today, Medicare beneficiaries that have filed coverage appeals are granted a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Under the proposed transfer plan, Medicare beneficiaries will now have their hearings heard via video- or teleconference (VTC) and will only be allowed to appear in person by request and if HHS determines that ``special or extraordinary circumstances exist.'' Moreover, beneficiaries granted an in-person hearing would not be assured that their cases would be heard within the 90-day window currently mandated by law. Lastly, the proposed transfer plan will endanger the independence and impartiality of Administrative Law Judges by requiring them to defer to program guidance provided by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) rather than on the Medicare statute and regulations, as they currently do. Central to our system of justice is the right of aggrieved parties to appear before an impartial judge in person to have their cases heard. Appearing face-to-face before an impartial trier of fact is the best way to ensure that a full and fair hearing occurs. In person hearings allow parties to fully make their case. At the same time, they allow judges to best evaluate the demeanor and condition of the parties, and other aspects of a case. The Administration's proposed rule transferring the Medicare appeals process from SSA to HHS greatly endangers this right by gutting the current practice of guaranteeing the right of Medicare beneficiaries to appear in person before an ALJ when having their appeals heard and instead will now presume that these hearings will be heard via video- or teleconference. Often when we talk about the denial of Medicare benefits, we are talking about the denial of services that literally have the ability to save lives. Medicare provides a critical safety net for millions of elderly and disabled beneficiaries and the proposed transfer plan's almost wholesale reliance on novel VTC technology may endanger the ability of many Medicare beneficiaries to accurately and personally portray the severity of their own health conditions. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005 will ensure those Medicare beneficiaries that have filed coverage appeals have access to timely, impartial, and in-person hearings before Administrative Law Judges. Specifically, this initiative will ensure that Medicare appeals will be heard in person before an ALJ, as they presently are. While all Medicare beneficiaries will be entitled to appear in person for their hearing, any beneficiary may choose to have their hearing heard via video- or teleconference. The legislation that I introduce today is in no way designed to prevent the adoption of the promising technology represented by VTC. Rather, this initiative simply seeks to preserve the critically important ability of Medicare beneficiaries to appear before the very judges charged with hearing their coverage appeals. By preventing the great majority of Medicare beneficiaries from appearing in person before the judge hearing their Medicare appeals, the Administration's proposed plan will greatly harm their ability to accurately and completely present all of the facts relevant to their case. And while I understand that many Medicare beneficiaries will choose to have their appeals heard via either video- or teleconference, I believe that we must preserve for Medicare beneficiaries the ability to appear in person before a judge when their cases are heard. The legislation will also require that all Medicare coverage appeal hearings, regardless of whether a Medicare beneficiary appears in person or chooses to appear via video- or teleconference, will be heard within 90 days as mandated by the Benefits Improvement and Protection Act of 2000. All Medicare beneficiaries deserve to have their appeals heard in a timely manner regardless of whether their cases are heard in person or via utilizing VTC technology. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act will also address the Administration's plans to reduce the number of sites where Medicare appeal hearings may be heard in person from the more than 140 sites currently available to four. This legislation will require at least one site for the hearing of in-person Medicare appeals in each state, the District of Columbia, and territory, with the nation's five largest states featuring two hearing sites geographically distributed throughout the state. Lastly, this legislation will ensure the independence and impartiality of Administrative Law Judges by relieving them of the proposed transfer plan's mandate to grant ``substantial deference'' to CMS program guidance. Medicare beneficiaries appealing coverage decisions should be fully confident that the judges deciding their appeals are bound only by the merits of their case and not undue pressure from agency of administration interference. I want to thank Senators Kennedy, Kerry, and Bingaman for joining me in sponsoring this important initiative. The Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act is also supported by a number of national and local organizations dedicated to preserving the continued ability of Medicare beneficiaries to access needed health care services. Endorsing the legislation that I introduce today are the Center for Medicare Advocacy located in my own state of Connecticut, the National Health Law Program, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the Medicare Advocacy Project of Vermont Legal Aid, the Medicare Advocacy Project of Greater Boston Legal Services, and the Senior Citizens' Law Office of Albuquerque, NM. In Congress we far too rarely have the opportunity to stave off problems before they occur. Rather, too often we are forced to involve ourselves in matters only after they have already wreaked havoc on the lives of our constituents. With passage of the Justice for Medicare Beneficiaries Act of 2005, we have the opportunity to avoid the adverse impact that the Administration's proposed transfer plan will likely have on Medicare beneficiaries. This legislation will preserve for our nation's 41 million Medicare beneficiaries the ability to timely appear in person before judges who will impartially determine which health care services they're entitled to receive under Medicare. Medicare beneficiaries deserve no less than the vital protections offered by this act and I ask for the support of my colleagues for this critically important initiative.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, two days ago the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider overturning contempt citations against two journalists, Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper. This decision by the Court effectively paves the way for these two reporters to be sent, possibly, to jail. Yesterday the District of Columbia Circuit Court upheld the convictions of four additional journalists for contempt. They may appeal to the Supreme Court, but they are justifiably concerned that the Supreme Court will decline to consider their case, just as the Court declined to consider the Miller and Cooper cases the other day. What did those journalists do to deserve criminal contempt convictions? Nothing more than their jobs, in my view. That is, they did nothing more than refuse to reveal to law enforcement officials the identity of sources to whom they had pledged confidentiality. Thomas Jefferson once said that were he to have to choose between a free country and a free press, he would select the latter. He understood--as did the other Founding Fathers--that nothing was more important to a free people than the free flow of information. An informed citizenry is the first requirement of a free, self-governing people. Armed with knowledge, our people can govern themselves and hold accountable their elected leaders and other high public and private officials. Today, that principle of a well-informed electorate holding their leaders accountable is at risk. Along with the 6 journalists I have just mentioned, there are 20 or more others who have been convicted or face conviction for protecting the confidentiality of their sources. This is an unusually high number by historical standards. Senator Lugar and I have introduced legislation, S. 340, the Free Flow of Information Act. We are joined in the other body by Representatives Spence and Boucher. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the free flow of information that is so essential to maintaining our free society. This legislation is not about conferring special rights and privileges on members of the Fourth Estate. It is, rather, intended to protect the right of all citizens to inform and be informed--including by speaking with journalists in confidence. The bill is hardly radical in concept. It is based on Justice Department guidelines and on statutes that currently exist in 31 States and the District of Columbia. While those State and DC statutes would not be preempted, the bill would establish a uniform Federal standard for Federal cases involving journalists and their sources. It would balance the legitimate and often compelling interest in law enforcement with the critical need in a free society to protect the free flow of information. It would achieve this balance by protecting the confidentiality of sources--while at the same time allowing courts to compel journalists to produce information about wrongdoing if that information is essential to an investigation and cannot be obtained from other sources. Imagine for a moment what would happen if citizens with knowledge of wrongdoing could not come forward and speak confidentially with members of the press. Serious journalism would virtually cease to exist. Wrongdoing would not be uncovered. We would never have learned about the crimes known as ``Watergate'' but for the willingness of sources to speak in confidence with reporters. My colleagues, when journalists are hauled into court by prosecutors, when they are threatened with fines and imprisonment if they do not divulge the sources of their information, then we are entering dangerous territory for a democracy, because that is when citizens will fear persecution simply for stepping out of the shadows to expose wrongdoing. When that happens, the information our citizens need to govern will be degraded-- making it more and more difficult to hold accountable those in power. And when the public's right to know is threatened, then all of the other liberties that we hold dear are threatened. We are under no illusions as to the difficulty of our task in advancing this legislation. We know that there are those who have a pavlovian response to words like ``reporter'' and may react negatively to this legislation. We also understand that it is critically important that we balance our Nation's compelling interest in preserving the free flow of information with its no less compelling interest in pursuing wrongdoing by criminals and others that would jeopardize the freedoms that we cherish as Americans. Mr. President, again, I am joined by Senator Lugar and my colleagues in the House, Congressmen Spence and Boucher. We would like to see some legislation at least be debated on the floor of the Senate and possibly passed by both Houses, if we have a chance to debate this. The fact that reporters are going to jail because of their refusal to identify confidential sources ought to raise the concerns of everyone, regardless of their ideology or politics. We all understand there is a danger in this if we lose what has been critical as part of our self- governance. This evening, with two reporters we know facing very serious jail sentences, with others who may face similar sentences, with some 20 other people who have either been convicted or presently are in the process, we think it is very important that we act in this matter. We know it is not necessarily popular. This is not about reporters, it is not about the press, it is about whether the citizenry is going to have access to information they deserve to get. It is not about protecting journalists or sources if that is the only way we can get information we need to pursue criminal prosecutions. It ought not to be the first arrow drawn out of the prosecutor's quiver trying to deal with these matters. Too often that happens. They need to work harder to get to the bottom of these cases, without dragging the reporters in front of these courts. I hope our colleagues on both sides of the aisle--conservatives, liberals, independents, moderates, or whatever--would be able to come together around this idea that in a free society of the 21st century the confidentiality of sources is something we ought to be willing to stand up and support. I urge my colleagues to consider this legislation and the leadership to put it on the calendar. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, I commend our colleague from Iowa, the chairman of the Finance Committee, and Senator Baucus, the ranking member from Montana, and the other members of the Finance Committee for their efforts on behalf of the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA, as it is known by most who follow this debate and discussion. I voted for the motion to proceed. I would have preferred we had a little more time. I realize we are moving rather quickly on this legislation. I hoped we would have a few more days to work on this legislation, but obviously that is not the case. We are moving ahead with the 20 hours of debate under the procedures as established by the Congress to have a fast-track procedure when dealing with trade agreements. So we are given the time we have to debate and discuss these matters. I am going to take advantage of this time and lay out for my colleagues and others my interests and my concerns about this matter. First of all, let me say, as someone who has spent almost a quarter of a century in this body, I have dedicated a great deal of my service to my interest in Latin America, my interest in Central America, and the Caribbean. That interest arose almost 40 years ago when, as a recent graduate from college, I joined John Kennedy's Peace Corps and traveled to the Dominican Republic, where I spent the next 2 years as a young man in the mountains of what is called the Cordillera Central of the Dominican Republic not far from the Haitian border as a Peace Corps volunteer. I have a deep, deep affection for the people of the Dominican Republic, the people of Haiti, and the people of the Caribbean and Central America. My oldest brother Tom was a professor at Georgetown University for 27 years and taught Latin American diplomatic history and also was our Ambassador to the nation of Uruguay and the nation of Costa Rica. Two others of my brothers studied in Mexico. My sisters speak Spanish. My mother did as well. There has been a strong interest in my family in Latin America for many years. My strong hope and desire, as I rise this evening to talk about this agreement, is to be able to be supportive when the vote occurs at the end of the 20 hours of debate. I think it is important we try to do everything we can to improve the quality of the lives of the people who live in these countries. They have been through an awful lot just during my tenure here in this body. For those who were Members of this body back 25 years ago, 24 years ago, we had some long and extensive debates about the political events in Central America. Civil wars raged. In Guatemala, the civil war raged for decades, as a matter of fact, long before I arrived in the Senate. You had civil wars raging in El Salvador, the civil war that went on in Nicaragua. The economic difficulties in Honduras were tremendous. There has been political turmoil in the Dominican Republic. In fact, the year before I arrived in the Dominican Republic as a Peace Corps volunteer, there had been a minirevolution there, which caused Lyndon Johnson to send the USS Boxer off to the coast of the Dominican Republic. The Marines went down in 1965 and, in fact, were still there in 1966, when I arrived there as a Peace Corps volunteer, as a young man, to work in the mountains of that country. Also, natural disasters have struck. I cannot recount the number of times they have hit the Dominican Republic and Haiti over the last number of years. Hardly a year goes by that some tragedy does not occur in these countries. Certainly, hurricanes have swept across the Island of Hispaniola, which is home to both Haiti and the Dominican Republic. I know my colleagues will recall the mud slides in Haiti, where literally thousands have lost their lives. And then there are the repeated hurricanes that have hit Central America. I recall going down, in early 1993, after one of those hurricanes hit Nicaragua, to work with then-Vice President Gore's wife, Tipper Gore, trying to clear mud out of schools and impoverished communities. Bridges were wiped out. Crops were lost. The country was devastated. To put it in brief, without going into long detail, these five countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic--Haiti is not included in this agreement. I regret that. I wish we were doing something more about Haiti. This body, a year ago, unanimously adopted a concessionary agreement with Haiti. Unfortunately, the other body refused to take up the matter. It could have made a difference, in my view, to provide some real assistance to people who are so desperately in need of help, the island nation of Haiti. It is one of the great tragic cases in the world, let alone in this hemisphere, the conditions under which people live there. I had hoped we might bring up that concessionary agreement again, either as a part of or in conjunction with this CAFTA agreement. The irony, in a way, if this agreement is adopted, is that we will be providing some meaningful assistance to the Dominican Republic, which inhabits two-thirds of the Island of Hispaniola, and doing virtually nothing for one-third of the island where the most desperate conditions prevail--in Haiti. But hope springs eternal, and I hope, before this Congress adjourns, we will be able to convince the other body that there is a reason to try to do what we can for Haiti. But back to the matter at hand, and that is this agreement affecting the Central American nations and the Dominican Republic. The people of these nations deserve our help, deserve something that will improve the quality of their lives. If that does not happen, quite candidly, what you are going to see is what people have done historically. They will express their feelings with their feet. They will walk. They will move. They will migrate. In many instances, I presume they will come to this country however they can make it here. We welcome, obviously, immigration. But a flood of immigration, which can occur as a result of economic conditions, in this country is something we ought to be mindful of as we consider the implications of this proposal. So again, my hope is to be able to be supportive. Let me outline, if I may, briefly, what my interests are. I had a very good meeting today with Ambassador Portman. I did not know him terribly well before, but I was very impressed with him and the team. We spent about an hour in my office discussing this matter. We had a very good meeting at the White House not too many days ago. President Bush, very graciously, invited a group of us down--I gather he has done that on several occasions now--along with people who are not committed to this agreement, to listen to various ideas. I commend him for that. I think there is a true desire to try to build strong support for this agreement in this body and in the other, if we can. So if I can, Mr. President, very briefly, I would like to lay out my concerns, what I am doing, what I have done today, what I am doing this evening, and what I will do tomorrow morning in anticipation of a vote occurring either tomorrow or on Friday, with my strong, fervent hope that I will be able to support this agreement. But let me lay out my concerns. As you know, I have long been concerned, as I mentioned, and involved in all aspects of our policies with respect to the countries of Central America and the Dominican Republic. For those of us who were serving in this Chamber in the 1980s, we all remember the dark days and bitter debates about events in the region at that time and the U.S. response to them. Happily, those dark days are now behind us. Today, the situation, if you will, in Central America is a far more positive and fruitful one. The debate is, of course, how to enhance our economic relations with the region in a manner that benefits the United States and our neighbors. I believe there are real possibilities for the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement being a vehicle for enhancing those relations and strengthening democratic institutions throughout the region. But I also believe that, even at this late date, there need to be certain understandings and clarifications if, in fact, we are going to achieve the very goals the CAFTA-Dominican Republic agreement lays out. Those clarifications relate to certain aspects of the agreement, if it is truly going to live up to the expectations the parties have set forth in it. Those of us who want to advance respect and adherence to core internationally recognized labor standards were somewhat disappointed that the agreement is a weak instrument for doing so. In fact, it is weaker than current provisions under the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act, which currently links unilateral trade benefits from the United States to the Caribbean Basin Trade Partnership Act-eligible countries to international workers' rights. I welcome the efforts of Senator Bingaman, our colleague from New Mexico, to strengthen the capacity of these countries to effectively enforce and uphold internationally recognized labor rights. I believe the provision agreed to by the administration, to provide an additional $3 million to fund the International Labor Organization programs in CAFTA-DR countries, is a step in the right direction. Ambassador Rob Portman has committed, on behalf of the Bush administration, to provide these moneys to the International Labor Organization so the organization can monitor and verify progress in the Central American and Dominican Republic Governments' efforts to improve labor law enforcement and working conditions. To strengthen the effectiveness of the ILO in carrying out its work in the region, I believe there needs to be a clear understanding, before we vote on the CAFTA-DR agreement, of exactly what would be entailed in those ILO programs if they are going to be effective. That is why I met today with Ambassador Portman and have contacted the CAFTA-DR Ambassadors from these countries to describe what I believe is needed to make the ILO initiative meaningful. Let me spell it out, if I can, very briefly. And it is not unreasonable and does not require renegotiation in any way. I have requested answers in writing from the affected CAFTA-DR Governments as to whether jointly or severally they would each welcome and support ILO efforts to improve labor enforcement and working conditions in their countries in relationship to the implementation of the CAFTA-DR agreement. We would support and welcome an active role for the ILO representatives and their countries, including acceptance of the principle that ILO representatives would be granted unfettered access to workplaces, be permitted to establish mechanisms for receiving and investigating matters related to core ILO labor standards, make private recommendations to worker and employer organizations and appropriate officials within each Government, as well as issue periodic public reports of its findings on matters of concern related to the enforcement of core ILO international labor standards as specified in the International Labor Organization's Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its followup adopted by the International Labor Conference in 1998. I am not breaking new ground here at all. In fact, what I have just described is included in other labor and other trade agreements, most specifically the trade agreement with Cambodia which was renewed by the Bush administration only recently, adhering to the very principles that were negotiated under the Clinton administration. So this is something that has already been accepted. Let me tell you why these provisions are important and why I think they help what we are trying to achieve with this trade agreement. I am hopeful the administration and the agreement governments will find this clarification useful and acceptable. If so, I believe the CAFTA-DR agreement will have made an important contribution to strengthening democracy in the region and improving the daily lives of their citizens. I await word from them in the coming hours. As I said, I very much want to be able too support this agreement. But I also want to have some confidence that I will be helping to raise the living standards of American and CAFTA-Dominican Republic workers and not be an accomplice to a rush to the bottom in weakening working conditions in either the United States or elsewhere in the region. Let me be clear that we aren't somehow raising the bar on the issue of respect for core labor rights. Existing trade preference programs for the region provide that the President should at least take into account the extent to which beneficiary countries provide internationally recognized workers rights. As currently written, the CAFTA-DR agreement would weaken standards these countries have been living under through the Caribbean Basin Initiative and Generalized System of Preferences. Instead of asking them to do more with the CAFTA-DR agreement, we are asking them to do less. Moreover, currently the trade benefits can be withdrawn in these other countries if a country lowers its labor laws below international standards or simply fails to meet those standards. And they can be withdrawn if a government directly violates internationally accepted workers rights that might not be protected under their laws. But this will not be the case under CAFTA and the Dominican Republic. Let me reemphasize that. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative agreements, we established very well for all involved that International Labor Organizations labor standards, which are not terribly high standards, ought to be enforced collectively. The irony would be that we are now moving away from the very agreement that has been beneficial to the Caribbean Basin Initiative countries. In fact, some of these countries are obviously under that agreement now, and these standards would be lowered, not enhanced, at a time we have been trying to improve conditions. This is also important to us from an economic standpoint. It has always been our goal with trade agreements with less developed countries to try to create wealth, to be wealth producing in our trade agreements. Obviously, this is critically important in the long term because our higher value goods and our higher value services need to have markets in these underdeveloped countries. If there is not wealth creation in these nations, then how will they ever afford to buy the products and the services that are higher cost? We have always tried to, as part of our trade agreements, improve those standards with a long-term vision that we would be a beneficiary as a result of wealth creation. And also it helps to improve tremendously living standards in the countries with whom we are trading. Moreover, the lack of an objective standard is troubling because it could create a race-to-the-bottom mentality where investors and companies play governments against each other seeking lower labor standards in a quest for increased profits. That type of situation would wreak havoc on civil society in these countries. At a time when we are trying to promote more civil societies, to strengthen democratic institutions, it could have the opposite effect. It could cost also American workers their jobs. By having one standard that applies to all, you avoid the race to the bottom which could occur. Let me make the point. Under this agreement each country would set its own labor standard, whatever they decided. They are required to enforce that labor standard. But there is no requirement of what that labor standard ought to be. For those who have followed events at all in these countries and have great affection for them, you don't need to have a PhD to understand there is a lot of difficulty when it comes to labor standards. That is why we have insisted on the ILO standards across the board generally, to try to maintain a more decent level. When you leave it up to each one of these countries to set their own standards and then only require that they meet them, you are obviously inviting the kind of race to the bottom I have just described. For the most part, CAFTA and DR nations have laws on their books, but they face a lack of resources and domestic political opposition from influential people which prevents them from enforcing these laws. This statement was expressed by U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman at a June 9, 2005 speech, only a few days ago, that he gave before the Hispanic Alliance for Free Trade. I commend him for his speech. Let me quote it, if I may. In that speech Ambassador Portman said: The ILO study demonstrated that the laws on the books are not the main issue. The major problem is that enforcement of those laws clearly needs improvement. Ambassador Portman went on to say: You can read the State Department's annual human rights report and quickly conclude that enforcement needs to be improved. You can read a recent White Paper published by the Labor Ministers of Central America, who themselves acknowledge that enforcement needs to be improved. These are good statements. They are strong statements, and I agree with our ambassador when he makes them. That is all I am suggesting with the language that I have submitted to Ambassador Portman and to the Central American countries earlier this evening. In my opinion, enforcement problems are not a result of malice on the part of these leaders. I believe that these leaders and these countries want to do the right thing. But I would remind my colleagues that our neighbors to the South are democratic countries. As in all democracies, they have to deal with powerful opposition interests. The administration seems to hold the view that the support for expanded trade and economic growth is incompatible with advocating core labor standards in developing countries. I believe the opposite is the case. In fact, when we have insisted upon better labor standards, we end up with a far better trading environment. In case after case after case, when we have insisted on stronger ILO standards, we have had a better trading relationship. When we have not, it has gone in the opposite direction. In fact, experts for the well-respected Institute for International Economics have concluded that ``core labor standards support sustainable and broadly shared political, social, and economic development.'' The operative word here is ``shared,'' shared among citizens, not simply a handful of people who have the resources and the political influence to effect them. So if this agreement is fixable--and I believe it is--it could be a win-win proposition. I believe it can be, and I hope the administration and the CAFTA-DR governments will welcome this fleshing out of the ILO role. Again, I commend Senator Bingaman and Rob Portman and the administration for being willing to sit down at a late hour and to welcome ideas about how we might make this a stronger agreement. I think the votes are probably here to pass an agreement even without these suggestions, but I think it is a better trade agreement if we have the kind of ILO standards I have talked about. Again, I emphasize, I very much want to support this agreement. I think it would make a difference in the long run, not only for our own country but also for these struggling democracies in Central America and the Dominican Republic. These are good friends. They have been through an awful lot. I mentioned earlier the political turmoil and strife, the loss of life through civil wars, the natural disasters that have crippled them. They deserve better. They are not going to get it through foreign aid. I know that. But they could get it through an improved trading relationship, by lowering barriers and working cooperatively. My hope is we will do it. There is only a small amount of trade between ourselves and these countries. It amounts to very little in terms of overall trade dollars. But I think we set a standard that could be used throughout the region in the coming years. My hope--even at this late hour, without in any way requiring that we reopen the process for negotiation--is that by just requiring that the ILO would be allowed to actually visit sites in these countries, not just the labor ministries, which is what the agreement does right now-- under the agreement, the ILO would go to the labor ministry and say: Are you complying or not complying. Obviously, we know what the answer will be. You are asking the very people to discipline themselves. Obviously, they are not likely to conclude that they are not complying. By doing what we did in the Cambodian Free Trade Agreement, in permitting the ILO inspectors to actually have site visits to determine whether the laws are being enforced and then, of course, to be able to work with employers as well as employees to try to fix the problem that exists there, we do a lot to strengthen this agreement. Again, I don't think it is asking too much. It goes a long way to making this a better and stronger agreement. It will do many good things for the people of these countries. I urge the administration and these CAFTA countries with whom we have been communicating today to consider this language offered. I have had a rather positive response so far from several of them, not all of them. My hope is that Ambassador Portman, on behalf of the administration, would be willing to accept this additional language to be included in correspondence along the lines that was provided to Senator Bingaman. I have drafted a letter to Ambassador Portman that outlines what I have described here this evening. I am not going to include that letter in the Record. I would rather Ambassador Portman have a chance to see it before it becomes a public document for him to take a measure of it and to let me know whether something might be done along the lines we described here. I look forward tomorrow to addressing this issue again during further debate. My strong hope would be to be able to stand before this body and to offer my unconditional support for this agreement. I believe what we have offered here is a reasonable proposal, one that could be included in this agreement and one that will allow us to have a strong vote. My hope is it would convince some of our colleagues in the other Chamber who have expressed strong reservations about this agreement to come onboard. Most of the reservations have been focused on the labor standard issue. Again, I think we can strengthen that and convince many of our colleagues to support this agreement. The people of these little countries, desperately poor people, deserve better. If democracy is going to work here, if economic opportunity is to occur, then we ought to be doing more. We have trade agreements with big powerful countries. Too often we allow too much to slip by and to allow these countries to take advantage of us. These small countries deserve some help and support. We spent $5 billion in the 1980s financing and underwriting a part of the civil war that occurred there. Thousands lost their lives. A great deal of our treasury was expended in Central America. It is time we expended some effort to see these people have a chance for a better life. I think this agreement can do it. A few changes that we have suggested could help us achieve that goal. I look forward to that opportunity occurring with a decision by the administration and the CAFTA countries. Mr. President, I would like to address the Senate on another matter. I want to be careful to make sure no one else wants to be heard on this matter. Let me inquire of the Chair, would it be appropriate for this Member to ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be able to use such time as I consume from the time under the control of Senator Baucus.

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I was necessarily absent from the Senate during final passage of H.R. 6, the Energy bill. I was attending the funeral of Mrs. Marcia Lieberman, the mother of my good friend and our colleague, Senator Lieberman. Had I been here, I would have voted for the bill, albeit with considerable reservations. I commend the chairman and ranking member for their hard work in crafting a bipartisan bill. But let me be clear, this bill is not perfect. All things being equal, it seeks to balance the economic needs of our country with the well-being of our environment and sets out a policy to provide Americans with a reliable and affordable supply of energy. Overall, the Senate Energy bill is a more balanced approach to energy tax policy than the House bill. It provides just under 50 percent of the tax incentives to renewable energy and energy-efficient buildings, homes and appliances. Unfortunately, the bill also provides 50 percent of tax incentives to mature industries such as oil, gas, coal and nuclear. The bill now includes a renewable portfolio standard, by which electric utilities must generate 10 percent of their power from renewables by 2020. In the past, I voted for a higher percentage because I believe our Nation can and should use even more renewable energy. However, the bill begins a smart, economic, and environmentally friendly path for this country to take and I am pleased that the Senate acted. For the first time, the Senate is on record in acknowledging the existence of global warming and recognizing the need to take mandatory, market-based steps to slow, stop or reverse the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. It is a start, a baby step, but again, it puts this country on the right path and I look forward to working with my colleagues to determine the right proposals to combat these emissions. Air pollution must be reduced. Long-term exposure to toxic emissions and unhealthy air has been linked to increased risk of cancer, reduced lung function in children, and premature death of people with heart and lung disease. Asthma rates in Connecticut are over two and a half times the national average; 7.9 percent of adults and 8.9 percent of children under age 18 in Connecticut have asthma. I am pleased the Senate included an amendment that I offered to study the effect of electrical contaminants on the reliability of energy production systems, including nuclear power facilities. In April, 2005, the Millstone 3 nuclear power plant in Waterford, CT, automatically shut down and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC, determined the cause to be a failure of a circuit card in a computerized reactor protector system. It was revealed that ``tin whiskers'' were present on the circuit card which led to the subsequent shutdown. Earlier this year, the January 10, 2005, edition of Fortune magazine had a lengthy article entitled, ``Tin Whiskers: the Next Y2K Problem?'' The article explained the seriousness of this problem. Finally, I am just as pleased with a few items that were not included in the Senate bill. Unlike the House, this bill does not grant retroactive liability to producers of MTBE, a gasoline additive that my home State of Connecticut has already banned. I urge my colleagues to keep this provision out of the conference report. There is no explicit opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, although there are attempts to open that pristine land through other pieces of legislation. Finally, the Senate bill steers clear of removing environmental protections from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Nor does the bill reduce environmental review for energy projects. I am disappointed that H.R. 6 includes language to inventory the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, including what is currently covered by a 23-year moratorium. Since 1982, Congress and the executive branch have prohibited new offshore leases in the OCS. While an inventory sounds benign, it is a costly endeavor that will cause irreparable harm to our coastal waters and could well set us on a slippery slope to drilling and exploration in these environmentally sensitive areas. I am also troubled by section 381 of the underlying Senate bill that preempts state authority and gives exclusive authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, with regard to the siting, construction or expansion of liquified natural gas terminals. I understand the need for increasing our supply of natural gas, but I have grave concerns over the process for siting LNG facilities. This hits close to home because there is a proposal to place a 1,200 foot long, 180 foot wide, 100 foot high LNG facility within Long Island Sound. FERC authority is also augmented by authorizing it to site transmission facilities in certain areas if a State fails to act within one year. Again, every State's authority is undercut by this provision. I am deeply concerned that the bill terminates FERC's proposed rulemaking for Standard Market Design, SMD, while doing nothing to address FERC's actions with regard to Locational Installed Capacity, LICAP. My attempts to insert a simple sense of the Senate amendment to clarify that governors and utility regulators throughout New England are opposed to LICAP and FERC should take their concerns and alternative proposals into account before a final ruling in September, were refused. The theoretical purpose of LICAP is to set prices that will provide an economic incentive for construction of new generation within New England. However, as proposed by FERC, LICAP will cost ratepayers more than $14 billion over 4 years without any guarantee that new generation will be built, with no penalty for not building new generation, and with no provision for refunding payments if no generation is built. I will continue to work with my colleagues to address this unfair situation. Finally, on the day after the price of a barrel of crude oil topped $60 for the first time, we must recognize that this Energy bill does virtually nothing to stem the tide of rising oil, gasoline, and heating oil prices. The majority defeated efforts to even urge the administration to divert oil from filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, SPR, and to release oil from the SPR through a swap program. I urge my colleagues participating in the conference to stand firm on the will of the Senate and return an energy conference report that moves our country on the path to energy security.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the Senate yesterday and missed rollcall votes 158 through 160. There were two reasons for my absence. First, I attended a memorial service for Mrs. Marcia Lieberman, the mother of our colleague, Joseph Lieberman. Second, I attended memorial services for Robert Killian Sr., the former Lieutenant Governor of Connecticut, a close friend to me and my family. Had I been present for these votes, I would have voted as follows: Rollcall vote No. 158: ``Yea''; rollcall vote No. 159: ``Nay''; rollcall vote No. 160: ``yea''.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Burr, Senator Reed, and Senator Ensign in introducing legislation that will significantly benefit some of the most gravely ill patients--those in need of a blood stem cell transplant. By reauthorizing the national program for bone marrow, creating a similar program for umbilical cord blood, and expanding the national stockpile of umbilical cord blood units, this legislation will dramatically increase the chances that patients in need of a life-saving transplant will be able to find an appropriate genetic match. The bill that we are introducing today is similar to legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year to create a national network of cord blood banks and a cord blood registry. However, there are two important differences. First, this legislation is consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, in their recent report, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic Stem Cell Bank Program,'' about the structure of a national cord blood program. Second, and more importantly, this bill would also reauthorize the national bone marrow program, and put both bone marrow and cord blood under the auspices of a single national program. This structure reflects the complimentary nature of bone marrow and cord blood, and will ensure that physicians and patients can more easily find the best possible match for transplantation. The therapeutic benefits of bone marrow are well established. Bone marrow transplants have been used for nearly half a century to treat patients suffering from diseases such as leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease, sickle cell anemia, and others. The use of cord blood as an alternative to bone marrow is a more recent development, but one that is just as promising and exciting. The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still in an early stage relative to the use of bone marrow, and may have even broader application in the II future. Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my first daughter, almost 4 years ago. It is not widely used--at least in this country. Approximately 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions are done using a bone marrow transplant--only 5 percent use cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the benefits of cord blood. First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27 percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation; it also does not require as exact a genetic match as bone marrow. In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications for both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone morrow in children. Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow. The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a national registry for bone marrow, which this bill would reauthorize. Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood, operating under the auspices of a newly established Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program. In addition to connecting physicians and patients with a suitable bone marrow donor or cord blood unit, the program would be required to educate the general public about cord blood and bone marrow, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of donors. Our bill would also provide grants to qualified cord blood banks to acquire 150,000 new cord blood units. This number is consistent with recommendations made by the IOM, and should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010 for the cord blood inventory grants, and $186 million over the next 5 years for the establishment and maintenance of the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program. Before finishing today I would like to make it clear that, just as I believe that cord blood should act as a complement to, not a replacement for, bone marrow, I also believe that cord blood does not eliminate the need for research into the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. Just as cord blood seems to be preferable to bone marrow for treating certain individuals or conditions--and the reverse is certainly true as well--the same may prove to be true for embryonic stem cells. Certainly, we should provide doctors with the best tools to help cure their patients, whether those tools come from bone marrow, cord blood, embryonic stem cells, or another source entirely. I firmly believe that the strengthening of our national infrastructure for bone marrow and the creation of a similar infrastructure for cord blood will save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Hatch, Senator Burr, Senator Reed, and Senator Ensign in introducing legislation that will significantly benefit some of the most gravely ill patients--those in need of a blood stem cell transplant. By reauthorizing the national program for bone marrow, creating a similar program for umbilical cord blood, and expanding the national stockpile of umbilical cord blood units, this legislation will dramatically increase the chances that patients in need of a life-saving transplant will be able to find an appropriate genetic match. The bill that we are introducing today is similar to legislation that Senator Hatch and I introduced earlier this year to create a national network of cord blood banks and a cord blood registry. However, there are two important differences. First, this legislation is consistent with recommendations made by the Institute of Medicine, IOM, in their recent report, ``Cord Blood: Establishing a National Hematopoietic Stem Cell Bank Program,'' about the structure of a national cord blood program. Second, and more importantly, this bill would also reauthorize the national bone marrow program, and put both bone marrow and cord blood under the auspices of a single national program. This structure reflects the complimentary nature of bone marrow and cord blood, and will ensure that physicians and patients can more easily find the best possible match for transplantation. The therapeutic benefits of bone marrow are well established. Bone marrow transplants have been used for nearly half a century to treat patients suffering from diseases such as leukemia, Hodgkin's Disease, sickle cell anemia, and others. The use of cord blood as an alternative to bone marrow is a more recent development, but one that is just as promising and exciting. The bill that we are introducing today will begin a new national commitment to the development of this technology which has the potential to reduce pain and suffering and save the lives of so many Americans afflicted with some of the most debilitating illnesses. Cord blood has already been used successfully in treating a number of diseases, including sickle cell anemia and certain childhood cancers. However, the use of cord blood is still in an early stage relative to the use of bone marrow, and may have even broader application in the II future. Like many Americans, I had never heard of cord blood before the birth of my first daughter, almost 4 years ago. It is not widely used--at least in this country. Approximately 95 percent of all bone marrow reconstitutions are done using a bone marrow transplant--only 5 percent use cord blood. This figure is surprising when we consider the benefits of cord blood. First, it can be very difficult to find a suitable bone marrow donor. According to a General Accounting Office, GAO, report, of the 15,231 individuals needing bone marrow transplants between 1997 and 2000 who conducted a preliminary search of the National Bone Marrow Donor Registry, NBMDR, only 4,056 received a transplant--a 27 percent success rate. This number is even lower for minorities. Cord blood would not only produce an additional source of donation; it also does not require as exact a genetic match as bone marrow. In addition, cord blood is readily available. While it can take months between finding a bone marrow match and actually receiving a transplant, a unit of cord blood can be utilized in a matter of days or weeks. Cord blood also lowers the risk of complications for both the donor and the recipient. The need to extract bone marrow from the donor is eliminated, and the risk of infection or rejection by the recipient is significantly reduced. Finally, research has suggested that cord blood might produce better outcomes than bone morrow in children. Why then, given all of these benefits, has the use of cord blood not become much more prevalent in the United States? In Japan, where the use of cord blood in clinical settings is more advanced, nearly half of all transplants now use cord blood rather than bone marrow. The relatively infrequent use of cord blood in our country is at least partly attributable to the lack of a national infrastructure for the matching and distribution of cord blood units. There are a handful of cord blood banks around the country doing excellent work, but there is a much more developed infrastructure for bone marrow. This is thanks to legislation passed by Congress in 1986 that established a national registry for bone marrow, which this bill would reauthorize. Our bill would create a similar infrastructure for cord blood, operating under the auspices of a newly established Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program. In addition to connecting physicians and patients with a suitable bone marrow donor or cord blood unit, the program would be required to educate the general public about cord blood and bone marrow, and encourage an ethnically diverse population of donors. Our bill would also provide grants to qualified cord blood banks to acquire 150,000 new cord blood units. This number is consistent with recommendations made by the IOM, and should be sufficient to provide a suitable match for 90 percent of the U.S. population. Finally, the legislation authorizes an appropriation of $15 million for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010 for the cord blood inventory grants, and $186 million over the next 5 years for the establishment and maintenance of the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Cell Transplantation Program. Before finishing today I would like to make it clear that, just as I believe that cord blood should act as a complement to, not a replacement for, bone marrow, I also believe that cord blood does not eliminate the need for research into the potential benefits of embryonic stem cells. Just as cord blood seems to be preferable to bone marrow for treating certain individuals or conditions--and the reverse is certainly true as well--the same may prove to be true for embryonic stem cells. Certainly, we should provide doctors with the best tools to help cure their patients, whether those tools come from bone marrow, cord blood, embryonic stem cells, or another source entirely. I firmly believe that the strengthening of our national infrastructure for bone marrow and the creation of a similar infrastructure for cord blood will save the lives of thousands of gravely ill Americans. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, as a cosponsor of an amendment to ensure there is State authority in the siting of liquified natural gas (LNG) facilities. I am troubled by section 381 of the underlying Senate energy bill that preempts State authority and gives exclusive authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to approve or deny an application for the siting, construction, expansion, or operation of LNG facilities within state boundaries. Extreme care must be taken to ensure that no energy project undermines the economic and environmental well-being of a State. The provision in the energy bill undercuts the rights of States to determine how best to protect their natural resources, economy and residents. It erodes State authority under the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to name but a few landmark environmental pieces of legislation that have established and affirmed the critical role of States in setting energy policy. Our amendment seeks to provide dual jurisdiction for States and the Federal Government, with respect to LNG facilities, similar to the provisions of the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 and as last amended in 2003. We are not inventing any new authority. Our straightforward amendment would require that FERC shall not approve an LNG license without the approval of a Governor. It defies common sense to have the voice of the States silenced by the Federal Government. The will of the people must be heard. Frankly, I do not see the need to turn our siting authority on its head. It is my understanding that as many as six LNG facilities have recently been approved by FERC and two additional facilities have been approved by the Maritime Administration (MARAD). These new facilities would join the 4 currently operating LNG facilities--facilities that have been in existence for many years. In February, the current FERC Chairman stated that he expected at least eight new terminals for LNG to be built in the next 5 years. That many have already received FERC clearance, but there are another 16 proposals with FERC, 7 proposals with MARAD and another 10 potential sites identified by project sponsors. I understand the need for increasing our supply of natural gas. But I am concerned that an over-reliance on LNG will simply shift this country from a reliance on foreign oil to a reliance on foreign sources of LNG. It is my understanding that Iran, Qatar and Russia hold more than half of the world's natural gas reserves. In April, Qatar, Iran, Egypt, Nigeria, Venezuela, and other natural gas producing nations met to discuss LNG pricing concerns, leading many to believe there is a will to some day form an OPEC-like structure. One of those LNG proposals before FERC would be located in Long Island Sound. While this structure is not onshore, it is still within State boundaries. It would tentatively be positioned about 11 miles from Connecticut and 9 miles from New York. According to the company's own pre-filing with FERC, the floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) would be about 1,200 feet long and 180 feet wide. That is longer than 3 football fields and a bit wider than one field. The structure would stand 100 feet above the surface of the water. That is about one- third the height of the Capitol from the base to the top of the Statue of Freedom. After warming the LNG to a gas, it would be transported in a NEW pipeline under Long Island Sound to an existing underwater pipeline. The structure would receive LNG shipments every 3 to 4 days and these tankers are projected to be nearly 1,000 feet long. These are not benign actions. The construction of the LNG structure and a new pipeline, combined with the ongoing tanker activity would have an immediate and immense impact on Long Island Sound and the states of Connecticut and New York. Tanker activity alone could cause such an exclusion zone that normal commerce and recreation on Long Island Sound could be dramatically impaired. It is imperative that the governor have authority to determine whether this project is safe, economic and reliable. Let us not forget, this proposed structure would be smack in the middle of Long Island Sound. Any attempt to move it away from Connecticut only moves it closer to New York and vice versa. Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance, but it is only 21 miles at its widest. There is not a lot of wiggle room for this structure. More than 8 million people live and vacation on or around Long Island Sound. Connecticut and New York have already spent millions of dollars and dedicated millions more to restore the health of the Long Island Sound ecosystem. A healthy habitat ensures a prosperous recreational and commercial fishing industry, boating, swimming, and an overall thriving tourism industry. Long Island Sound provides an economic benefit of more than $5 billion to the regional economy. So, as this process moves along, decisions regarding the siting of an LNG facility must take into account its safety and security, its environmental impact, its actual energy benefits and its general fit within Long Island Sound. LNG facilities must be sited smartly and our governors must have a final say. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Florida, Senator Nelson and Senator Martinez, as a cosponsor of their amendment to strike the OCS inventory language from the Energy bill. I want to commend Senator Domenici and Senator Bingaman for working hard to craft a bipartisan bill, but I have a number of concerns with it, including the OCS inventory language. Since 1982, Congress and the Executive branch have prohibited new offshore leases in the OCS. The moratoria began with California and was expanded to include the rest of the west coast, Georges Bank, New England, the mid-Atlantic, part of the eastern Gulf, and portions of Alaska. Both President George H. W. Bush and President Clinton upheld the OCS moratoria. Let us be very clear. While an inventory sounds benign, it is a costly endeavor that will cause irreparable harm to our coastal waters and set us on a slippery slope to drilling and exploration in these environmentally sensitive areas. Why else would the Federal Government propose to spend nearly $1 billion to conduct seismic drilling activities if it did not intend to go forward with further coastal exploration? To suggest otherwise strains credulity. Further, nowhere in the underlying bill does it say how the Federal Government is going to pay for this $1 billion inventory. I contend that there are better ways to invest $1 billion--health care, education, infrastructure improvements, energy efficient technology, and renewable resources come immediately to mind, than on a misguided attempt to open our coastal areas to oil and gas exploration. As I mentioned, conducting an inventory would entail seismic drilling that would have a ripple effect up and down our coastline. We already know that this type of activity has a devastating impact on marine life, including whales. I am concerned that any seismic drilling or other similar activities along the North Atlantic and mid-Atlantic coast would have a tremendous negative impact on the health and well-being of Long Island Sound and the coastal areas of Connecticut. Long Island Sound is an estuary of national significance with not one, but two openings to the sea. It is bordered by Connecticut and New York, running 110 miles long and 21 miles across at its widest. More than 8 million people live and vacation on or around Long Island Sound. Connecticut and New York have already spent millions of dollars and dedicated millions more to restore the health of the Long Island Sound ecosystem. A healthy habitat ensures a prosperous recreational and commercial fishing industry, boating, swimming, and an overall thriving tourism industry. Long Island Sound provides an economic benefit of more than $5 billion to the regional economy. Therefore, I am deeply concerned that any attempt to inventory the OCS or begin future oil and gas exploration in the Atlantic would cause irreparable harm to Long Island Sound and the State of Connecticut. I therefore strongly support the Nelson-Martinez amendment and urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, last evening, something rather extraordinary happened here in the waning minutes of the session. My very good friend from Kansas, the distinguished chairman of the Intelligence Committee, took the floor to discuss the Bolton nomination--an issue, I say to my colleagues, no one wants to be resolved more quickly than the Senator from Connecticut. I have been involved in this for two straight months. The Presiding Officer and I are both on the Committee on Foreign Relations. This goes back to April 11, the day we had hearings. My hope is that we can resolve this matter sooner rather than later. Last night, my friend from Kansas took the floor and announced that he knew what names the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee were concerned about when dealing with the Bolton nomination. This is the matter of the intercepts Mr. Bolton requested--some 10 of them--involving 19 names of U.S. citizens, Americans, on those 10 intercepts. We made the request earlier on to allow the chairman and ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, as well as the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, to review the raw data on those 10 intercepts to determine whether there were any problems associated with Mr. Bolton's desire to see those intercepts, since there has been a basis of information concerning efforts by Mr. Bolton to intimidate a number of people within the intelligence community--of both the intelligence and research division of the State Department, as well as the CIA-- concerning certain intelligence conclusions. Therefore, it is a matter of concern to many of us on the committee that we have an opportunity to review whether there has been any further intimidation. I offered initially that we have the four Senators I mentioned review the matter. That was rejected by the administration. I then suggested why not just submit the names we are interested in and have the Intelligence Director inform us as to whether those names were part of the intercepts. If they were not, end of matter. If they were, we might want to proceed further to determine why those names were sought out. That was also rejected because the number of names requested to be reviewed was some 36 names. The reason I made the request for 36 names is because we had no idea specifically what these 10 intercepts involved. We were even denied a synopsis of what may be involved. We were flying in the dark about this information. At any rate, my colleague and friend from Kansas proceeded to say he was familiar with what the six or seven names would be that we should be interested in. As a result, he proceeded to publicly name five of the seven individuals he identified. Not surprisingly, he also announced he consulted with Director Negroponte, who informed my friend that none of the names Senator Roberts provided to the administration were among the names Mr. Bolton and his staff were given by the National Security Agency. What is remarkable about what happened last evening is that the Senator from Kansas is not a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee--the committee of jurisdiction with respect to the Bolton nomination. The Senator did not participate in more than 10 hours of hearings on the nomination. I sincerely doubt whether our colleague reviewed the more than 1,000 pages of transcripts from more than 30 interviews conducted by the bipartisan staff who jointly conducted those interviews. I know of no one on the committee who was consulted by our friend from Kansas to provide any input to the list that was settled upon. I do believe we owe our colleague from Kansas a debt of gratitude, because the administration has at least now accepted the principle of cross-checking names against the list of names reviewed by Mr. Bolton. If the administration, in a matter of hours can cross-check seven names offered up by Senator Roberts, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, why is it a problem to cross-check the 36 names we have drawn up based on our own participation in the 10 hours of committee hearings and review of over 1,000 pages of interview? We are not on some fishing expedition here at all to derail the Bolton nomination. We have not opened the State Department phonebook and selected names at random. There is a very specific rationale for each of the names on the list of 36 developed as a result of 10 hours of hearings, 1,000 pages of transcripts, and some 30 interviews. The report of Mr. Bolton's hearing quite clearly and starkly paints a picture of an individual who is an ideologue determined to have his own way. We know what he tried to do with the underlings at the State Department and CIA--that is not in debate--who dared resist his efforts to endorse as fact what was not supported by available intelligence. Mr. Bolton tried to crush them. We know what he tried to do with other career State Department employees who ran afoul of him for inexplicable reasons. He sought to have them excluded in legal deliberations in areas of their responsibility or blackballed them from being assigned positions within the Department. Mr. Bolton was a very driven individual when he sought to get his way with underlings. He even went so far as to propose a CIA analyst be denied country clearance so that he could not undertake official foreign travel. He even sought to have the same individual's State Department building pass revoked. I do not need to go over these matters in detail, but the fact is, there is more than ample justification for seeking these 36 names, as well as the information that Senator Biden has raised regarding the raw data, the draft speeches dealing with testimony before the House committees on Syria. These are not difficult requests to satisfy. As I said a minute ago, my friend from Kansas submitted seven names to the Department, and he was told within a matter of hours or less that they were not on the 10 intercepts. So whether or not the 36 names sought by the Foreign Relations Committee are included on those intercepts should also be a question that can be answered in a reasonable amount of time. I have not told anyone, despite a number of requests, the names of the 36 people we would like to have checked out. I think acknowledging certain names is dangerously close to bordering on revealing the importance of the intercept traffic. When certain names are mentioned and then excluded, there is an implication that maybe they should be on those lists. So I would caution Members from publicly talking about the names. We have made no effort to do so. We, of course, want to limit the number of Senators who would actually be able to review this matter to four Senators out of the 100 in this body. In all my years here, I have never faced such a situation where a coequal Member of this body has presumed to speak on behalf of another--in this case, suggesting that he knew which names we should request. Having submitted those names, he then discovered, of course, that those names were not on the intercept list that we saw. So I am still hopeful this matter can be resolved. I do not think it should take that long. Certainly, if the administration would just respond to the two requests regarding the draft statements-- congressional testimony by Mr. Bolton--and check out the names that we have requested regarding these intercepts, if that information is provided and clears up those two matters, then I think this body is ready to vote up or down on Mr. Bolton. Perhaps he behaved more judiciously in dealing with his peers and superiors than he did with those below him in rank. Perhaps the information he requested from the NSA was routine and solely to carry out his responsibilities as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. But given Mr. Bolton's zealotry on proliferation, on North Korea, on Libya, on Syria and other policy areas, it is not unreasonable to worry that he used all tools at his disposal to advance his causes. That is what we seek to find out through a cross checking of our names of concern against the names provided to Mr. Bolton. As a matter of institutional right, we have, I think, an absolute right, as a coequal branch of Government, to solicit information that directly pertains to the qualifications of this individual to be confirmed by the Senate for the position to which he has been nominated. So I would hope that the information would be forthcoming and that we would be able to get the answers and move on.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. DODD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dodd are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today with Senators Jeffords, Kerry and Feingold to introduce the Medical Education Affordability Act, MEAA. The purpose of this bill is to make medical and dental education more affordable. Upon graduation from college, students who demonstrate economic hardship are eligible to extend their student loan deferment for up to 3 additional years. Using the economic hardship deferment, a formula that takes into account earnings and debt level, the majority of medical and dental residents defer repayment of their student loans until the end of their residency period. Unfortunately, for those specialties that require a residency of more than 3 years--OB/GYN, psychiatry, and general surgery to name a few--student loan repayment begins before a resident's medical or dental education is completed. This situation creates an enormous financial burden for residents who have, in most cases, incurred significant debt. In 2004, the average indebtedness for graduating medical students was $115,000, for graduating dental students it was $122,263. While lenders are currently required to offer forbearance to medical and dental students, this is an expensive option as interest continues to accrue and may be capitalized more often. The Medical Education Affordability Act would solve this problem by extending the economic hardship deferment to cover the entire length of a medical or dental residency. By altering the definition we are removing a significant financial obstacle facing students with residency periods longer than 3 years. I want to stress again, residents will still have to demonstrate economic hardship--MEAA only extends the deferment for borrowers that continue to meet the debt-to- income requirements of the economic hardship deferment. Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will join me in support of medical education by signing onto this bill. By working together, I believe that the Senate as a body can act to ensure that more individuals are able to pursue a full range of medical specialties. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Iowa.

Mr. DODD. About 5 minutes.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I wish to take a couple of minutes to review for my colleagues what has transpired over the last several days on the pending matter of the nomination of John Bolton to be our ambassador to the United Nations. I know there has been a lot of talk about whether goalposts have been moved in our efforts to resolve the outstanding matters concerning information which the Foreign Relations Committee seeks from the administration regarding the Bolton nomination, information that will not be shared with all Members of this body, but shared with the appropriate members of the Intelligence Committee and the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee. We have not been expanding the goalposts but, rather, shrinking them. I want to review what has happened since April 11, since the issue was first raised regarding the nomination of John Bolton. There are two issues on which the Senate Foreign Relations Committee seeks additional information. One has to do with 10 intercepts involving the names of 19 Americans that Mr. Bolton sought as the Under Secretary of State. We have tried since April 11, since the issue was raised on April 11, to have the appropriate members of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Intelligence Committee review those intercepts, much as Mr. Bolton did. The administration has refused to allow that to occur. I then offered as a counterproposal, rather than the appropriate members looking at the intercepts, that at least the names of people we believe may be on those requests from Mr. Bolton be sent down to the administration for them to review. If they are on the list, we would want to pursue that a bit further to find out why Mr. Bolton sought information about them. If they are not, then that would end the matter. A second matter of equal importance is a request Senator Biden has made, and that has to do with draft testimony before the Congress regarding Syria and the possibility of weapons of mass destruction being located in Syria. Both requests are rather simple to comply with and should not take much time. But my colleagues on both sides ought to be aware that this is now a matter beyond the consideration of Mr. Bolton. Either the Senate has a right to receive pertinent and important information regarding this nomination or it does not. Certainly my colleagues on both sides of the aisle know historically that other Members have sought information from other administrations they thought was critical to completing their task either on a matter of public policy or a nomination. As I said earlier, we began on April 11. On April 14 of this year, questions were submitted. Again on April 22. On April 29, Senator Biden wrote to the administration requesting information regarding Syria. On May 4, Senator Lugar sent letters to Secretary Rice which implied that she need not comply with all of the requests but certainly some of them. On May 18, Senator Biden sent a letter directly to Ambassador Negroponte requesting information regarding the intercepts; again on May 26, on June 1, on June 2, on June 3, on June 8, on June 9, and as late as today on June 14. There has been a long effort to try and work out some compromise, including the request I made to Mr. Negroponte, to allow us to submit the names. If John Negroponte reported back that there was no correlation between those names and the intercepts sought by Mr. Bolton, then I was going to be satisfied with that answer. It is ironic, in a way, that the administration is filibustering their own nominee. I want to get to a vote on John Bolton. We can do it in 24 or 48 hours, in my view, by simply responding to the request we have made, in the modified form we have made it, and responding to Senator Biden's request regarding the testimony on Syria. Both of those matters have been sought now for almost 2 months, and yet the administration continues to stonewall on those two requests. I think it is important that the Senate be heard on these matters. I think it is dangerous for us not to be. There is pertinent information that could relate to the decisions by Senators to vote for or against this nominee. In short, we have reached out a hand of compromise to the administration. And in response, the administration has given us the back of theirs. They have given us nothing--no counteroffer, just more stonewalling. It is rather ironic that it is the administration that is filibustering its own nominee. As my colleagues are well aware, on May 26, just before the Memorial Day recess, the Senate, by a vote of 56 to 42, did not invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a vote on the nomination of John Bolton to the position of United States Representative to the United Nations. The reason that the Senate did not invoke cloture was that sufficient numbers of our colleagues have supported the Foreign Relations Committee's efforts to make sure that all relevant information has been made available to the Senate related to this nomination before the Senate casts an up or down vote. The administration has offered no rationale for refusing to provide the NSA intercepts or the information about the consultant. With regard to the Syria documents, it has argued that they are not relevant to our inquiry. In other words, the administration is telling the Senate what it may investigate. It has also said that providing the information will have a ``chilling effect'' on the deliberative process; yet the committee has already received numerous deliberative process materials. The administration claims that they have already given the necessary information related to the intercepts request to the committee of jurisdiction, namely the Select Committee on Intelligence. First, the Bolton nomination is within the jurisdiction of the Foreign Relations Committee, not the Intelligence Committee. Second, we know from Senators Roberts and Rockefeller that General Hayden refused to provide them with the very names that Mr. Bolton and Mr. Bolton's staff were allowed to see. Moreover, in a letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Rockefeller stated that Mr. Bolton may have shared the NSA intercepts with others at State without prior authorization from NSA. So to be clear, Mr. Bolton was apparently free to share this unedited information with members of his staff, but the chairman and ranking members of the Intelligence and Foreign Relations Committees have been denied access to this same information. I also want my colleagues to understand that the areas of inquiry that the committee is pursuing were not dreamt up by us last night or last week. The administration has been aware for some time what we were seeking and how strongly we felt about these materials being provided. Let me lay out the chronology of our requests. On April 11, during the first hearing on Mr. Bolton, that I first raised questions about the NSA intercepts. On April 14, I submitted a question for the record inquiring about this Issue. On April 22, I sent a letter directly to the NSA requesting this information. On April 29, Senator Biden sent a letter, which also requested the information related to Syria. On May 4, Senator Lugar sent a letter to Secretary Rice which implied that she should not feel obligated to respond to all of the Committee's requests. On May 18, Senator Biden sent a letter directly to Ambassador Negroponte, our new Director of National Intelligence, requesting these NSA intercepts. On May 26, he sent a second letter to Negroponte, again making the same request. On June 1, I called Ambassador Negroponte to offer a proposal for resolving the intercept issue. On June 2, I sent a letter to Ambassador Negroponte which laid out in writing the June 1 verbal proposal. On June 3, Ambassador Negroponte called me to say, ``no deal.'' On June 8, Senator Roberts approached me and suggested that pursuing my idea of a giving a list of names to the administration might bear fruit. He also proposed a role for the Select Committee on Intelligence in the process. That seemed reasonable to me. After consultation with Senator Biden he did, too. On June 9, Senator Biden and I sent a letter laying out our understanding on how names might be provided to the administration, and what the role for the chair and cochair might be in the process. On June 14, Senator Roberts replied in writing to our letter saying he could not support our proposal. I would add that our colleague Senator Rockefeller has said he believes our proposal is eminently reasonable. Through all of this, no one from the White House has contacted me or my colleague Senator Biden to offer any proposal for moving this process along. In short, the administration has made no effort to meet Senator Biden and me halfway or even one-quarter of the way. The answer is either no or even worse, silence. I ask my colleagues: If there is nothing in all of these documents, why have they not been provided? If there is nothing in them, then surely, providing them would clear up some of our concerns rather quickly. And make it possible to move forward with an up or down vote on the nomination. And so if there is culpability for the delay in the Senate's consideration of the Bolton nomination, that culpability rests with the Bush administration. They have the ability to unlock this nomination by cooperating with this Senate as they did during the consideration of nominations during President Bush's first term in office. I stand ready to listen to any proposal from the administration to resolve this matter. I know my colleague Senator Biden does as well. But the institutional prerogatives of the Senate are at stake here, and I believe we have the responsibility of protecting those prerogatives for this Congress and future Congresses. I am pleased and grateful that sufficient numbers of our colleagues appear to feel the same way. I hope all Senators, regardless of whether they believe John Bolton will be a great man at the United Nations or not, realize this is a matter of constitutional equity. Either the Senate, as a coequal branch of Government, has the right to request and receive through appropriate Members and appropriate committees pertinent information relating to a critical nomination or not, and if we do not, then I think this body suffers in its ability to perform its constitutional duties. That is what we are requesting. It can be satisfied in a matter of hours, and then the Senate, as a body, can vote up or down on John Bolton to send him to the U.N. or not send him to the U.N. But to stonewall this institution on information we have a right to receive I think is wrong and I think it jeopardizes the relationship between the Senate and the White House. My hope is the White House will respond to the modified requests we have made so we can get about the business of voting on this nomination and moving to other matters before the Senate. I thank my colleagues from Iowa and Illinois for being generous with their time.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to congratulate Elizabeth Kelly and Sadie Hartell, of Willington, CT. Both Elizabeth and Sadie will be presenting projects this week in Washington in celebration of National History Day this Wednesday, June 15. Elizabeth and Sadie, both of whom attend Hall Memorial School, were selected as 2 of 19 students who will be presenting their projects this week. These students are part of a larger group of 2,300 finalists, who were selected from more than half a million participants in National History Day activities across our Nation. National History Day is an initiative to promote the learning of history by American students in junior high and high schools. It encourages students not only to read their textbooks but to visit libraries, museums, and archives, and to create exhibits and participate in performances based on historical themes. This year marks the 25th anniversary of the National History Day initiative. The students who competed in the National History Day competition have spent months doing in-depth research on topics they have selected, and preparing their presentations. Elizabeth Kelly's project is titled, ``The Second American Revolution: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Her Fight.'' As part of her research, Elizabeth interviewed Colin Jenkins, a relative of Stanton's, who gave her original letters by Stanton that Elizabeth incorporated into a 10-minute dramatic performance, which she will be presenting at the National Museum of American History. Sadie Hartell's project is titled, ``The Beatles Communicating to Their Generation.'' She will be presenting an exhibit and showing a short movie. Sadie did her research at both the University of Connecticut Music Library, as well as at Hall Memorial's school library. Her project, which she will be presenting at the Renwick Gallery of the Smithsonian American Art Museum, focuses on how the Beatles used their music to express sentiments about the Vietnam War. I congratulate Elizabeth and Sadie, as well as all those students who participated in National History Day. Knowledge of our history as a nation is critical to our understanding of our present, and our future. They have both demonstrated tremendous dedication and commitment, and it is my hope that their achievements inspire others to learn more about our Nation's rich and storied history. I wish them much success in their studies and their future endeavors.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to introduce, along with Senators Mikulski, Landrieu, Levin, Cantwell and Kerry, the Youth Service Scholarship Act. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 a year to high school students and undergraduates who perform community service. A recent study titled Community Service and Service Learning in U.S. Public Schools reveals that 66 percent of public schools involve students in community service. This means that approximately 54,000 public schools in America currently engage about 13.7 million students in community service each year. Other studies have shown that nearly 84 percent of high school students participate in volunteer activities either in or out of school and two-thirds of college students have recently participated in volunteer activities. The Youth Service Scholarship Act is designed to assist low-income students who dedicate a significant portion of their time to volunteer service with money for college. This Act would authorize the Secretary of Education to award college scholarships of up to $5,000 to high school students who perform over 300 hours of community service in both their junior and senior years. In order to be considered, high school applicants must maintain a 3.0 grade point average, submit character recommendations, and write an essay on the nature of their community service. Additional money will be available if the student continues to participate in a significant amount of community service once they are in college. Voluntarism not only brings support and services to communities in need, it provides significant benefits to the students who participate. Research has shown that students who volunteer are 50 percent less likely to use drugs and alcohol or engage in destructive behavior. Additionally, students who volunteer are more likely to receive good grades, be philanthropic, graduate, and be interested in going to college. In the 21st Century, higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity. For many of our low-income youth, finding money to pay for college is an obstacle to enrollment. This scholarship program provides aid to motivated and inspired youth. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Youth Service Scholarship Act. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.