Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, I want to speak to the amendment.

In March of 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, to finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Preference Program.

The credit insurance approval, however, had one major flaw. It appeared to violate the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to explain that statute.

Section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute--that is the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury--I emphasize ``substantial injury''--to U.S. producers of the same commodity.

The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production,'' with emphasis upon exceeding 1 percent of United States production.

I want to go back to last year then. As of last year, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly then exceeds the 1 percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.

I want to make clear, we are not talking about changing existing policy. We are talking about not letting somebody use subterfuge to get around existing law. It appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the bank's authorizing statute. Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export- Import Bank was less than $10 million--remember, we are talking about $9.87 million--there was no detailed economic impact analysis conducted by the bank. So it seems to me they were conveniently under the $10 million threshold as a way of muddying the waters, camouflaging this transaction, not drawing attention, not even taking their official look at the requirements of the statute by being about $130,000 under the $10 million threshold, hoping that somehow this would get by without our finding out about it.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 Act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to

the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension will cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.

In January of this year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank skirted around the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank skirted the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil.

The Export-Import Bank's response to Congress was, to be polite, a curious one. The Export-Import Bank's linguistic gymnastics aside, Angostura's plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol.

Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol.

From what I can see, the Export-Import Bank's approval of credit guarantees for Angostura's ethanol plant violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute by causing substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity, in violation of the law. Accordingly, it is only right that no further funds should be provided for this facility.

My amendment would simply provide that no funds made available under the 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank to approve or administer a loan or guarantee for Angostura's ethanol dehydration plant. The credit guarantees for Angostura were improperly approved. Angostura, and ultimately Brazilian ethanol producers, should not continue to benefit from credit guarantees that were improperly provided by this bank.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment for the purpose of offering an amendment.

Mr. President, I am going to offer an amendment. Before I send it to the desk, I want to speak to the amendment.

In March of 2004, the Export-Import Bank approved the issuance of $9.87 million in taxpayer-guaranteed credit insurance to help Angostura Holdings Limited, of Trinidad and Tobago, to finance the construction of an ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad. The purpose of this credit insurance was to enable Angostura to purchase equipment to be used to dehydrate up to 100 million gallons of Brazilian ethanol annually. Angostura would then reexport the resulting dehydrated ethanol to the United States duty free under the current Caribbean Basin Initiative Trade Preference Program.

The credit insurance approval, however, had one major flaw. It appeared to violate the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. I want to explain that statute.

Section 635(e) of the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute--that is the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945--states that the bank is not to provide credit or financial guarantees to expand production of commodities for export to the United States if the resulting production capacity is expected to compete with U.S. production of the same commodity and the extension of such credit will cause substantial injury--I emphasize ``substantial injury''--to U.S. producers of the same commodity.

The statute goes on to provide that ``the extension of any credit or guarantee by the Bank will cause substantial injury if the amount of the capacity for production established, or the amount of the increase in such capacity expanded, by such credit or guarantee equals or exceeds 1 percent of United States production,'' with emphasis upon exceeding 1 percent of United States production.

I want to go back to last year then. As of last year, when the credit guarantees for Angostura were approved, the total 100 million gallon capacity of the Angostura facility was nearly 4 percent of U.S. production. This amount clearly then exceeds the 1 percent threshold for causing substantial injury to the U.S. ethanol industry as spelled out in the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute.

I want to make clear, we are not talking about changing existing policy. We are talking about not letting somebody use subterfuge to get around existing law. It appeared to me that the approval of credit guarantees for Angostura by the Export-Import Bank violated the bank's authorizing statute. Moreover, as the amount financed by the Export- Import Bank was less than $10 million--remember, we are talking about $9.87 million--there was no detailed economic impact analysis conducted by the bank. So it seems to me they were conveniently under the $10 million threshold as a way of muddying the waters, camouflaging this transaction, not drawing attention, not even taking their official look at the requirements of the statute by being about $130,000 under the $10 million threshold, hoping that somehow this would get by without our finding out about it.

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Congress asked the Export-Import Bank for an explanation of the credit guarantees for Angostura. Specifically, the 2005 Act required the Export-Import Bank to submit a report to

the Committees of Appropriations of the Senate and the House containing an analysis of the economic impact on U.S. ethanol producers of the extension of credit and financial guarantees for the development of the ethanol dehydration plant in Trinidad and Tobago. Congress also required that this report determine whether such an extension will cause substantial injury to such producers, as defined in section 2(e)(4) of the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945.

In January of this year, the Export-Import Bank provided its report. In its report, the Export-Import Bank skirted around the issue of whether its credit guarantees for Angostura caused substantial injury to U.S. producers, and thus whether the approval of these guarantees was in compliance with the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute. The Export-Import Bank skirted the issue by claiming that the Angostura plant will not ``produce'' dehydrated ethanol. Rather, the Export- Import Bank stated that this plant will merely ``process'' dehydrated ethanol by removing water from wet ethanol produced in Brazil, thus merely ``adding value'' to the wet ethanol from Brazil.

The Export-Import Bank's response to Congress was, to be polite, a curious one. The Export-Import Bank's linguistic gymnastics aside, Angostura's plant will clearly be producing dehydrated ethanol. This is common sense. An ethanol dehydration plant--of course--produces dehydrated ethanol.

Moreover, the Customs Service recognizes that ethanol dehydration plants in Caribbean Basin Initiative countries produce dehydrated ethanol.

From what I can see, the Export-Import Bank's approval of credit guarantees for Angostura's ethanol plant violated the Export-Import Bank's authorizing statute by causing substantial injury to U.S. producers of the same commodity, in violation of the law. Accordingly, it is only right that no further funds should be provided for this facility.

My amendment would simply provide that no funds made available under the 2006 Foreign Operations Appropriations Act may be used by the Export-Import Bank to approve or administer a loan or guarantee for Angostura's ethanol dehydration plant. The credit guarantees for Angostura were improperly approved. Angostura, and ultimately Brazilian ethanol producers, should not continue to benefit from credit guarantees that were improperly provided by this bank.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be read.

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

Mr. President, While I support the underlying amendment and hope my colleagues will support it, I rise to strongly object to a provision in this amendment which lies within the jurisdiction of the Senate Finance Committee. Section 1808 requires the Bureau of Customs and Border Patrol to conduct a study on the screening of municipal waste. The Bureau is then required to ban the importation of such waste 6 months after the report is submitted unless certain certifications are made.

I have been in consultation with the Office of the United States Trade Representative and believe that this provision raises serious international trade concerns. In fact, this provision could violate trade responsibilities under both the World Trade Organization and the North American Free Trade Agreement. If that is the case, our exporters are likely to face retaliation. I don't want that to happen. Furthermore, it could also provoke similar restrictive actions by our trading partners against U.S. waste exports. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, approximately 250 U.S. companies in over 30 States sent hazardous waste shipments to Canada in 2003 alone.

I am especially disappointed that this provision was reported out by the Committee on Homeland Security. Last year we engaged in significant debate regarding appropriate jurisdictional responsibilities of each committee. The Senate determined that provisions relating to Customs and border protection and international trade clearly lie within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee.

Just a cursory reading of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction under Rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate provides that:

The following standing committees shall be appointed at the

commencement of each Congress, and shall continue and have

the power to act until their successors are appointed, with

leave to report by bill or otherwise on matters within their

respective jurisdictions:

Committee on Finance, to which committee shall be referred

all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and

other matters relating to the following subjects: Customs,

collection districts, and ports of entry and delivery;

reciprocal trade agreements; revenue measures generally; and

tariffs and import quotas, and matters related thereto.

An elaboration of the scope of the Finance Committee's jurisdiction can be found on our web site where it is clearly explained that:

The Senate Finance Committee's jurisdiction is defined by

subject matter--not by agency or Department.

As a consequence of the committee's broad subject matter

jurisdiction, the Finance Committee has sole or shared

jurisdiction over the activities of numerous agencies and

offices: the Office of the United States Trade

Representative; the Department of Agriculture Foreign

Agricultural Service on matters relating to foreign barriers

to U.S. agriculture goods; numerous divisions within the

Department of Commerce; and Broad Jurisdiction over the

Department of Homeland Security.

This provision of this amendment clearly falls within the jurisdiction of the Finance Committee. And there is a reason for committee jurisdiction. We need to ensure that those committees with appropriate expertise have an opportunity to weigh the implications of these provisions before they become law. Otherwise, we end up exactly where we are today--exposing our exporters to unnecessary trade retaliation due to ill conceived and short-sighted provisions.

I urge the conferees to reject this provision during conference consideration.

Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to offer my congratulations and gratitude to an extraordinary Iowan. LTG Roger C. Schultz is stepping down from his distinguished position as Director of the Army National Guard for the National Guard Bureau. He assumed this position in 1998 and has served for 7 years, the longest anyone has held this title. I would like to take this opportunity to show Lieutenant General Schultz the appreciation that the country, the State of Iowa, and myself personally, have for his extensive commitment to the Army National Guard. He joined the Iowa Army National Guard in 1963, and from there he began a career that lasted 42 years.

Lieutenant General Schultz has had an extensive career. In his most recent position as director, he was responsible for the formulation, development, and implementation of all programs and policies affecting the Army National Guard. Previously, he served as Deputy Director for Military Support on the Department of the Army Staff, where he was responsible for coordinating all Department of Defense military support to civilian authorities, which included disaster relief. While stationed with the Iowa Army National Guard, he was in Command of the 2nd Brigade, 34th Division and served as the Army Guard Chief of Staff and Deputy Adjutant General. General Schultz also received several awards and recognitions for his exemplary service. He is honored with the Distinguished Service Medal, Silver Star, Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star, Purple Heart with Oak Leaf Cluster, Meritorious Service Medal with Two Oak Leaf Clusters, Department of the Army Staff Badge, Army Superior Unit Award, Humanitarian Service Award, the Combat Infantry Badge for service in the Republic of Vietnam, and many others.

General Schultz was born in LeMars, IA and enlisted when he was 18 years old. He was a student at officer candidate school at the Iowa Military Academy. Following these studies, he was commissioned in 1967 as an infantry officer. Shortly thereafter, he was sent to serve his country in the Republic of Vietnam with the 25th Infantry Division. During his several assignments, he also earned a bachelor's degree in management from Upper Iowa University and a Masters degree in public administration from Shippensburg State University in Pennsylvania. He also attended Army War College.

I share my appreciation for the general with not only his neighbors in the State of Iowa but the entire country. He has proven himself to be versatile and fully capable of accepting and mastering the tasks placed before him. His enduring commitment to the safety of Americans is cause for admiration.

Again, I offer my congratulations and sincere appreciation to LTG Roger Schultz for his remarkable achievements in the Army National Guard. He has continually provided an invaluable service to his country and I thank him for his dedication and devotion to Iowa and to America.

Mr. President, just 2 weeks ago a former staffer and longtime friend, Ally Milder, and a business associate of hers came to spend the weekend at the Grassley farm in New Hartford, IA. I tried to get Ally to step out of her fancy shoes for a couple of days and learn a little about farming. I never did persuade her to feed pigs, but we had a lot of laughs.

Today I stand before the Senate with great sadness because Ally Milder--my former chief counsel and a good friend to Barbara and me-- died suddenly last Thursday at the age of 50. Ally is gone suddenly and too young. I extend my deep sympathy to her mother Frances and sisters Julie and Kelly, and pay tribute to Ally Milder with much regard.

I met Ally in 1981. She was one of my first counsels on the Senate Judiciary Committee. I was a freshman Senator. She was fresh out of law school and stayed on my staff until 1987, becoming chief counsel during that time. Ally and I shared a great interest in religious freedom. Her leadership helped me to be very active in Soviet Jewry issues as a Senator, including a 1983 trip to the Soviet Union where we met with Russian Jews, the refuseniks, in Moscow. Ally was instrumental in forming the InterParliamentary Group for Human Rights in the Soviet Union, an important weapon in the fight against abuses and for freedom for Soviet Jews. Her tremendous enthusiasm and commitment to this important cause was also proved when she staffed passage of legislation to change the address of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to One Sakharov Plaza. We had to fight the State Department and all kinds of other powerful interests to prevail and provide a daily reminder that America would not overlook the plight of dissidents. Ally personally made a difference in the course of history with her work in this area of human rights.

Ally worked on many issues during those years, including the nomination of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court and extension of the Voting Rights Act. Under her leadership of my Judiciary staff, the False Claims Act was passed and signed into law. This landmark legislation updated a Civil War-era law to empower individual citizen-whistleblowers to fight fraud against the taxpayers. In the nearly two decades this law has been on the books, it has returned more than $12 billion to the U.S. Treasury that would otherwise have been lost to fraud. In addition, Ally oversaw renewal of Chapter 12 of the Federal Bankruptcy Code, which was a lifeline for family farmers needing to reorganize debt and stay in farming during the terrible farm crisis of the 1980s.

Whatever she was working on, Ally brought energy, a let's-make-it- happen attitude, and characteristic good nature to the task. Her skill and style made her a respected and well-liked colleague on the staff.

Ally left Washington to return home and run for Congress herself, making two good attempts for the Second District seat in Nebraska. I campaigned with her several times. She was tireless about reaching the voters, and we spent one of those days going to all the small towns and rural areas in the district. From what I know about Ally Milder, both before and after she ran for the House of Representatives, I am convinced she would have made a very good Congresswoman. Ally went on to serve on the State board of education starting in 1992, and launched a successful consulting and lobbying practice.

Ally always kept in close touch, and she loved politics. I appreciate the support she gave me. She was generous and shared her commitment to making things better in a lot of ways, including mentoring economically disadvantaged young people.

It is hard to believe that Ally won't be walking around the corner somewhere, sometime next week, with her big smile and warm embrace. Knowing Ally, she might want us to take comfort today in an old Jewish saying that ``the only truly dead are those who have been forgotten.'' There is no doubt that Ally Milder will be remembered. She was full of life, bright, hardworking, and someone focused on the good things in life and making life good for those around her. She will be greatly missed.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, last night we started debate on the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Last night, in addition to the economic factors involved in the approving of this bill, I spoke about the national security importance of this Central American Free Trade Agreement. I also talked--as, obviously, we do on most trade legislation--about the benefits of the agreement to the U.S. economy in general. This morning, I will focus on the benefits of this agreement for U.S. agriculture.

As a Senator from Iowa and as a person who lives on and has an interest in a family farm my son operates, I have major interest in the U.S. agricultural policies that benefit American farmers. Moreover, as chairman of the Finance Committee, I pay particularly close attention to trade issues as they affect agriculture.

I consulted frequently with the U.S. Trade Representative during negotiations on this agreement, the Central American Free Trade Agreement. I do that because that is the responsibility my committee has under trade promotion authority, which is a process by which Congress delegates the process of our carrying out our constitutional responsibility of control over international trade to the President to negotiate because it is quite impractical for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate with foreign countries.

U.S. negotiators went to great lengths to see that the Central American Free Trade Agreement would be a good agreement for American farmers. Their efforts were successful. The negotiations resulted in an agreement that is particularly strong for U.S. agriculture and the agribusiness community that affects so many nonfarm jobs throughout the United States.

I am fully convinced that implementation of this Central American Free Trade Agreement by the United States is in the best interests of U.S. agricultural producers. That is why I go to great lengths urging my colleagues to support it.

U.S. farmers and ranchers are well aware of the fact that the international playing field for agricultural exports is presently far from level. Average tariffs of other countries on imports of U.S. agricultural products in the case of most commodities is significantly higher than those imposed by the United States. That worldwide average would be 60-some percent of tariffs of U.S. agricultural products going into another country, whereas those same countries throughout the world bringing products into the United States face an average of only an 11- percent tariff.

It is common sense to negotiate other countries' tariffs against our agricultural products down some or a lot and hopefully down to a point where we are in a win-win situation for American agriculture and the nonfarm jobs involved in the processing and handling of agricultural products. That is our long-term goal. In fact, that is the goal we have right now in the Doha round World Trade Organization negotiations going on this year. That is for the entire 150 countries that are members of the World Trade Organization. We hope that Doha round is a major breakthrough for the reduction of high worldwide tariffs against agricultural products.

Now, as this unequal situation I just described has clearly demonstrated, and specifically in this trade relationship we have between the United

States and these five countries of Central America, over 99 percent of agricultural products from Central American countries coming to the United States currently come in here not with an 11-percent average tariff I talked about worldwide, they come in with hardly any duty-- except for an occasional product--and are duty free right now. That is unfair to American farmers.

When we send products down there, the average bound tariff of these five Central American countries is over 44 percent. The current trading relationship between the United States and the CAFTA countries is not only an unlevel playing field but also a one-way street. CAFTA farm products do not pay tolls to enter the U.S. market today. Yet U.S. agricultural products are charged hefty tolls to enter the markets of these five countries. This is all going to be changed by the Central American Free Trade Agreement. A downhill one-way street will become a level two-lane road.

Under the agreement, the CAFTA countries will eliminate tariffs on virtually all products. U.S. tariffs will remain largely unchanged. After all, the vast majority of agricultural products of the CAFTA countries already enters the United States duty free. For example, the treatment under the agreement of the four major U.S. commodities--pork, beef, corn, and soybeans--demonstrates how the Central American Free Trade Agreement will remove disadvantages faced by U.S. agricultural producers. These commodities are of importance not only to my State of Iowa but to most agricultural States in our country.

The Central American Free Trade Agreement countries currently apply tariffs of up to 47 percent on imports of U.S. pork. Their bound rates reach as high as 60 percent. Under the agreement, these tariffs of the Central American countries will be reduced to zero.

With beef, they apply tariffs of up to 30 percent on imports of U.S. beef. Their bound rates reach as high as 79 percent. Under CAFTA, these tariffs of the Central American countries will be reduced for our U.S. farmers to zero.

The CAFTA countries currently apply tariffs of up to 45 percent on imports of U.S. corn. Their bound rates reach as high as 75 percent. Under the agreement, tariffs of CAFTA countries on corn, the predominant product we export, will be reduced to zero, with the exception of the Dominican Republic, in which case duty-free access will be locked in.

Soybeans is another example. CAFTA countries currently apply tariffs up to 5 percent on imports of our soybeans and up to 20 percent on U.S. soybean oil. Their bound rates reach as high as 91 percent for soybeans, 60 percent for bean meal, and 232 percent for the soybean oil. Under the agreement, tariffs of the CAFTA countries on U.S. soybeans, bean meal, and soybean oil will be reduced to zero.

The leveling of the playing field with regard to CAFTA countries will result in real gains for U.S. agriculture. According to the Farm Bureau Federation, CAFTA would increase U.S. agricultural exports to those countries by $1.5 billion at the end of the full implementation. CAFTA will result in dollars in the pockets of U.S. farmers and ranchers.

Recognizing that CAFTA will profit their members, numerous agriculture and food organizations have expressed their support for this agreement. I have a letter from 73 such groups that back the agreement. These organizations represent diverse commodities produced in the area regions including among the 73 the Farm Bureau Federation, Soybean Association, Chicken Council, Corn Growers, Milk Producers, Pork Producers, Potato Council, Turkey Federation, Rice Federation.

Moreover, six former U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture, both Republican and Democrat, have announced their support for the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Let me read those: Ann Veneman, Republican; Dan Glickman, a Democrat; Mike Espy, Democrat; Clayton Yeutter, Republican; John Block, Republican; Bob Bergland, Democrat. They all noted in a recent letter to Congress that they back CAFTA ``because the benefits are very significant and the costs are minimal.''

I ask unanimous consent to have that letter printed in the Record.

Most sectors of U.S. agriculture support the CAFTA. I realize one--sugar--is a commodity we did not have their support. I respect the sugar industry. They are very important. Outside of that group, we have agriculture represented behind this group.

An economic study by the American Farm Bureau Federation confirms that CAFTA will not harm the U.S. sugar program or other agricultural commodities.

While CAFTA is important in itself for U.S. agriculture, the implementation of this agreement would boost U.S. efforts to liberalize agricultural trade around the world. The implementation of CAFTA would give further momentum toward the completion of agricultural negotiations in the Doha Round of the World Trade Organization, negotiations in which the United States is seeking to cut tariffs, harmonize levels of domestic support, and eliminate export subsidies.

Mr. President, CAFTA is a straightforward win for the bulk of U.S. agricultural producers. A current one-way trading relationship will end. The CAFTA countries will dismantle their tariffs to U.S. agricultural products while the United States will provide little additional access for CAFTA commodities. This will result in increased sales for U.S. agricultural exporters, sales of up to $1.5 billion a year by the end of the agreement's full implementation. Not surprisingly, CAFTA is widely supported in the U.S. agricultural community.

The CAFTA is good agricultural policy and good trade policy. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator whatever time he needs.

Madam president, I yield such time as the Senator from Colorado may use.

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

Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I will respond to some of the speakers through the course of debate on this bill who pointed to a report of the International Trade Commission on CAFTA as evidence that this trade agreement is not meaningful to the United States.

Let me explain that the International Trade Commission is an agency of the Federal Government, but it is an agency that is very independent, with 9-year terms for members to serve. They do a great deal of research in international trade and are very well respected for the reports they put out.

This report that was referred to as evidence of this trade agreement not being helpful to the United States misrepresents the scope of the International Trade Commission estimates as well as the scale of the CAFTA agreement itself. Critics point to one part of the International Trade Commission report which estimates the tariff and quota liberalizations under the agreement will result in zero percent change in welfare for the United States.

Now, those critics ignore the Commission's conclusion that if CAFTA is fully implemented, overall U.S. welfare will increase in a range of $135 million to $248 million, with minimal impact on U.S. employment and output.

In fact, the Commission estimates that no sector of the U.S. economy is likely to experience a decline in output, revenue, or employment greater than 2.5 percent once CAFTA is fully implemented.

So critics fail to acknowledge that the Commission's estimates are based only on the tariff and quota liberalization provided under this agreement. The Commission's estimates do not

quantify the other very important elements of this agreement--which the people using this report to justify a vote against CAFTA take into consideration--such as the benefits from an improved regulatory environment, improved protection of intellectual property rights, efforts at trade facilitation, and liberalization of regulations governing investment and the provision of services we will sell to those countries of CAFTA.

The Commission report does not attempt to quantify any broader geopolitical benefit to the United States of improved economic well- being and political stability in the CAFTA countries as a result of the agreement. But the fact remains that those benefits--not referred to by the opponents of this agreement, who find it convenient to quote one part of a trade commission study but not the whole study--the fact remains, then, that if you look at the whole report of the International Trade Commission, those benefits are a part of this agreement, as well, and will materialize and are obviously good reasons for voting for this bill.

After some critics are done arguing that CAFTA is meaningless to the United States, they do, however, point to another part of the Commission's report and offer another doom-and-gloom scenario. They point to the Trade Commission's estimates that suggest that once CAFTA is implemented we will increase our bilateral trade deficit with these countries by as much as $110 million. Those critics ignore the Commission's conclusion that if you take into account likely changes in our global pattern of trade, once CAFTA is fully implemented, then our overall trade deficit is likely to decline by $750 million.

Now, how does the figure of $750 million get ignored, but a $110- million figure gets taken into consideration? Well, it is quite obvious that the people who are quoting from this report quote what benefits their position for voting against CAFTA and do not look at the overall beneficial impact of CAFTA on the United States.

That $750 million is a very important number. Our bilateral trade balance with individual countries or regions may be interesting to consider, but the one number that is of significance to our economic health is our overall trade deficit. According to the ITC, the International Trade Commission, CAFTA will help reduce that trade deficit by $750 million.

Now, all the people crying about our trade deficit, are they going to take into consideration $750 million? Why on Earth would we walk away from that benefit, as the opponents of this agreement will have the United States do with their ``no'' vote?

I hope this dispels the critics' misinformation about CAFTA. The fact is, when you read the ITC report in its entirety, it becomes clear that implementing CAFTA offers meaningful benefits to the United States, both in terms of improving the economic welfare of the United States and in terms of reducing our overall trade deficit.

Again, CAFTA offers us those benefits with minimal impact on U.S. employment and output. That is not what Senator Grassley says, that is what the International Trade Commission says. And if you add all the other economic and geopolitical benefits that are not readily quantified, I believe the tremendous benefit of this agreement to the United States is then seen in its proper light.

So I urge my colleagues not to be misled by the critics. The ITC report corroborates that CAFTA will be beneficial to the United States.

Also, let me suggest that during this debate, I have heard much talk about the lack of Government policies concerning the trade deficit. I am not here to justify any trade deficit. I am not here to say those people who say it is too big are wrong. But I think I have heard left out of this entire debate a policy that we have had under Republican and Democrat administrations for a long period of time, and that is, the freedom of the American consumer to have access to any product made anywhere in the world that they want to buy. Because we believe in freedom, we believe in choice for our consumers. We believe the consumer ought to have the benefit of choice, of quality, and price. And we happen to have the consumers of America buying much and saving little.

Now, is that right? I do not know. But people who are concerned about our trade deficit, do they want to shut off the faucet that allows our consumers to have the choice of anything? I may be speaking too sweepingly when I say this next sentence but I believe we let anything into our country that consumers want to buy, except for pharmaceutical drugs. Senator Dorgan and I have been working together to make sure the consumer has that choice as well, to drive down prices, and give them the best product they can get.

Now, I do not think anybody wants to take freedom of choice away from American consumers. If we are spending too much on consumer products, importing too much, maybe we ought to have more incentives for savings, maybe we ought to be, without a doubt, enforcing our antitrust laws, antisurging laws, countervailing duties to be applied, and all those things that need to be done about the problem that exists. But our deficit is overwhelming because of consumer products coming into the United States.

Wal-Mart brings in $18 billion from China--$18 billion of our imports; just one company. Now, when you go to Wal-Mart--I don't care. I happen to go to a Wal-Mart some. I don't go there as much as I go to our small businesses in Iowa to buy things but occasionally go there. Are you going to take that choice away from the American consumer by not having Wal-Mart import? I don't know. I don't see anybody suggesting that.

Somehow we are led to believe that China is like a Japan with these big surpluses. China has a trade deficit as well. China has 3 percent of our national debt in bonds. Japan has 8 percent. Yet you would think that somehow that 3 percent is a major problem.

I would suggest that what we ought to be doing here is encouraging our consumers to buy American, buy American, or don't buy so much consumer goods yourself, and invest that money that we send to Japan through Wal-Mart directly in U.S. bonds. Buy American products. Do as we did in World War I and World War II, be patriotic and buy U.S. bonds to help our economy.

Consumers in America are king. And when consumers in America decide to cut down on our trade deficit, it will be cut down. I think consumers ought to continue to be king in America because that is economic freedom, that is individualism, that is America.

Mr. President, I rise to make a unanimous consent request on the order of speakers to be recognized: Senator Kerry for 20 minutes, and that is from the time of Senator Baucus; Senator Inhofe, for 15 minutes from my time; Senator Bingaman, 8 minutes from the time of Senator Baucus; and Senator Brownback for 10 minutes from my time.

Mr. President, I hope I can say the Senate is going to pass S. 1307. I think we will do that. I am going to work the floor to make sure that happens. We have had an awful lot of support expressed for the bill today, and so I look forward to an announcement of a majority vote.

I think history will record this important legislation as a positive step in the development of democracy and prosperity in the CAFTA countries that has developed over the last 20 years, greatly expanding that. I am also confident that our leadership in passing CAFTA will be rewarded through benefits our Nation enjoys under this trade agreement, and more importantly, in the broader picture, advancing our overall trade agenda, particularly with the Doha round of negotiations going on throughout the course of 2005.

I also want to take a moment to compliment Senator Coleman of Minnesota. Senator Coleman has worked hard to create export opportunities for his farmers and manufacturers while looking after the interests of his sugar farmers, who Senator Coleman clearly cares deeply about.

Senator Coleman worked to get his sugar farmers disaster assistance a couple years ago when they were originally ineligible. And now, Senator Coleman has secured a commitment from this administration that the sugar import cap established in the farm bill will not be substantively violated as long as this farm bill is in place.

I want to compliment him on his commitment and dedication to his constituents. I appreciate his efforts to

find a long-term solution to this complex issue.

I am ready to yield back the balance of time and proceed to a vote.

Mr. President, the Senate has just passed S.1307, the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am confident that history will record this moment as an important positive step in the development of democracy and prosperity in the CAFTA countries. And I am also confident that our leadership in passing CAFTA will be rewarded, through the benefits we will enjoy under this trade agreement and in terms of advancing our overall trade agenda.

First and foremost, today's vote reflects the leadership of President George W. Bush to advance the national economic and security interests of this country. This agreement is another important piece of the President's overall agenda to increase market access opportunities for America's farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and service providers. By passing CAFTA we also strengthen our position in the ongoing Doha Development Agenda negotiations of the World Trade Organization. I hope our Trade Representative, Ambassador Portman, will build upon the momentum created today to press for meaningful progress in the Doha Round negotiations.

I want to thank the members of the Administration who delivered the comprehensive CAFTA agreement. At the top of that list is our former Trade Representative, Ambassador Zoellick, who managed to negotiate such a carefully balanced agreement without taking anything off the table. I firmly believe that the guiding principle for all our trade negotiations must be to deliver comprehensive agreements that do not take anything off the table. I expect our trade negotiators to continue delivering comprehensive agreements like CAFTA. Supporting Ambassador Zoellick closely were Ambassador Allen Johnson, our chief agriculture negotiator, and Regina Vargo, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for the Americas. Of course, I am grateful too for the diligence with which Ambassador Portman has focused on CAFTA since taking over as our Trade Representative.

Today's successful outcome would not have been possible without the hard work and sustained effort of a number of dedicated professionals. I want to take this opportunity to thank them for their efforts. From the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, I want to thank Mike Smythers, Special Assistant to the President for Senate Affairs. I also want to thank Matt Niemeyer, Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs. The long hours they put in to address Senate concerns and to maintain an open dialogue with Members and staff are very much appreciated. And supporting Mr. Niemeyer in those efforts was Jennifer Mulveny, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Congressional Affairs. David Oliver, of the Office of General Counsel at USTR, also provided significant legal and technical support both during and after the negotiations were completed.

I want to commend my colleague on the Finance Committee, the ranking member, Senator Baucus. Although we did not agree in our views on CAFTA, we maintained our positive working relationship throughout the process. I hope the folks at home will take note. People may think Washington is mired in partisan bickering, but I think we on the Finance Committee have demonstrated our ability to disagree and still maintain respect for each other and for committee process. I am grateful to Senator Baucus, and very proud of our committee.

My diligent staff on the Finance Committee has worked very hard to make today's vote possible. First and foremost, my chief counsel and staff director, Kolan Davis, deserves recognition. His skills in managing my lengthy legislative agenda are key to my success. The chief international trade counsel to the committee, Everett Eissenstat, also deserves special mention. Without Everett's tireless dedication to passing CAFTA, I really do not think we would be in this position today. I am also grateful for the strong support the rest of my trade staff provided. David Johanson and Stephen Schaefer, international trade counselors to the committee, were instrumental in providing legal advice and technical support, as were Tiffany McCullen Atwell, international trade policy advisor, Claudia Bridgeford, international trade policy assistant, and Russell Ugone, who is on detail to my staff from the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security. And I want to note my gratitude for the many efforts of Zach Paulsen, former International trade policy assistant to the committee.

Senator Baucus' staff also deserves recognition for their professionalism and flexibility in helping to move the legislative process forward. I am grateful to Russ Sullivan, Democratic staff director, and Bill Dauster, deputy staff director, for their accommodation and dedication to the committee. I also appreciate the efforts of Brian Pomper, chief international trade counsel to

Senator Baucus, and the other members of the Democratic trade staff: Shara Aranoff, Demetrios Marantis, Anya Landau, Janis Lazda, and Chelsea Thomas.

Finally, I want to identify two people for special recognition. The first is Polly Craighill, senior counsel in the Senate's Office of Legislative Counsel. Her dedication to the Senate is profound. The Finance Committee benefits greatly from Ms. Craighill's expertise in legislative drafting, her tireless efforts, and her constructive perfectionism. Today's vote is in no small part a testament to her skills. I also want to extend my deep gratitude to Jeanne Grimmett, legislative attorney in the American Law Division of the Congressional Research Service. My staff and I repeatedly called upon Ms. Grimmett to prepare legal research and memoranda in connection with our development of this legislation, and her timely support was instrumental to our success today. I am very grateful.

I look forward to the enactment of this legislation and hope that President Bush will sign it into law very soon.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Baucus in introducing the Medicare Value Purchasing (MVP) Act of 2005. Senator Baucus shares my strong commitment to ensuring the vitality of the Medicare program for generations of beneficiaries to come. Two years ago, we worked in a bipartisan manner to establish the first ever Medicare prescription drug benefit, to create new coverage choices under the Medicare Advantage program, and to cover more preventive screening tests. The Medicare Modernization Act transformed Medicare benefits and choices.

Over the past 40 years, Medicare has made immeasurable differences in the lives of our Nation's seniors and disabled citizens by providing beneficiaries with access to care. The bill that we are introducing today will ensure that they continue not only to have that access, but also have access to good care. Some folks might think I am saying that beneficiaries don't receive good care today. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that physicians, hospitals, nurses and other providers across the country work every day to provide quality care. But just like all Medicare beneficiaries have the same benefits, all Medicare beneficiaries should get the highest quality care possible. And today, that's just not the case; there is tremendous room for improvement.

A May 2005 Commonwealth Fund review of more than four hundred studies and data sets painted a mixed picture on the quality of care received by Medicare beneficiaries. The analysis found that many improvements are occurring--breast cancer screening rates have tripled and many patients with diabetes get the tests they need to keep them healthy. At the same time, the review showed that in some parts of the country, beneficiaries get recommended treatments, such as immunizations, but in other parts they don't. They found that improvements in care for Medicare beneficiaries have not kept pace with improvements among other groups. For example, between 1988 and 1994, the percent of forty-five- year-olds to sixty-four-year-olds whose blood pressure was controlled, increased from 33 percent to 40 percent. Among Medicare beneficiaries, it stayed the same--just 24 percent. They also zeroed in on the need to strengthen programs to care for beneficiaries with a chronic illness. Research shows that twenty percent of Medicare beneficiaries have five or more chronic illnesses. Caring for these beneficiaries accounts for nearly 70 percent of Medicare spending.

One of the study's most disturbing findings was the States with higher spending per Medicare beneficiary tended to rank lower on twenty-two quality-of-care indicators. According to the researchers, this might reflect practice patterns that favor intensive, costly care rather than ``effective'' care. Simply stated, spending more, does not necessarily translate into better quality care for beneficiaries. Of the $300 billion Medicare dollars spent last year, I think it is safe to say that in many cases we--beneficiaries and taxpayers--did not get the absolute best value. Not even close.

Why is that the case? In part, it is because of the way we pay for care. I am sure that everyone remembers ``To Err is Human'' in which the Institute of Medicine reported the startling fact that studies suggest that up to 98,000 Americans die in hospitals each year from medical errors. It was in headlines for months.

I would bet that not as many folks know about the IOM's follow-up report, ``Crossing the Quality Chasm.'' In my opinion, that report is equally, if not more, important because it sets forth a wide-ranging strategy to address the deficiencies in our health care system that undermine the delivery of high quality care. Among the IOM's chief recommendations was a call to both public and private purchasers to examine their current payment methods to remove barriers that currently impede quality improvement, and to build stronger incentives for quality enhancement.

The IOM specifically recommended that payment methods should provide ``fair payment for good clinical management.'' Providers also need to be able to share in the benefits of quality improvement. Consumers and purchasers need opportunities to recognize quality differences and to use quality information when making health care decisions. In simplest terms, we need to better align financial incentives to help promote quality and to achieve better value. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) has issued similar recommendations.

Today, Medicare pays the same amount regardless of quality of care. Some people would argue that in fact, the current Medicare payment system rewards poor quality. For example, if a patient suffers a complication from subpar hospital care and ends up back in the same hospital to treat that complication, Medicare will pay the hospital for the patient's rehospitalization. On the other hand, if a hospital follows best practices of care and helps patients avoid complications that could require a rehospitalization, well, that hospital doesn't get anything. The hospital that provides lower quality care to the beneficiary gets another payment. The hospital that provides higher quality care to the beneficiary gets nothing.

Over time, this perverse situation could disadvantage the hospital that delivers higher quality care to beneficiaries because it will get less revenue, which could compromise its ability to compete against other hospitals. This situation just does not make sense; neither to me, nor should it to beneficiaries. Providing lower quality care can lead to greater revenue, while providing higher quality care can penalize providers financially. It is the exact opposite of what we want and need for Medicare and beneficiaries. Of course, our Nation is blessed with millions of dedicated and qualified health care providers who care deeply about the quality of care they provide to their patients. What we have is a systemic failure of Medicare payment systems to reward quality and provide the incentives to invest more in health care information technology and other efforts to improve health care quality. This bill creates the financial incentives that reward those providers who deliver that quality care today, and to those who make improvements where they are needed.

The MVP Act seeks to remedy this situation and to implement the IOM's and MedPAC's recommendations by creating quality payments under Medicare for physicians and other providers, hospitals, health plans, skilled nursing facilities, home health, and end stage renal disease facilities. Senator Baucus and I know that it is a pretty ambitious strategy. We also recognize that this substantial departure from current payment practices cannot and should not happen overnight. Careful consideration of which quality measures that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) should use in making quality-based payments will take some time. Providers will play a significant role in determining which measures to use. This is important--we need to make sure that the measures are valid and reliable. In addition, providers will need some time to become more proficient in collecting and reporting quality data for payment purposes.

The MVP Act builds on the small step made in the MMA which established reporting incentives in its early years. Under the MMA, hospitals that report ten quality measures receive a full payment update, those that don't report, receive a smaller update. This approach has been successful. In 2005, 99 percent of hospitals reported the data and CMS has seen improvements in quality among the participating hospitals. Under the MVP Act, using the data from these reporting years, CMS will give providers an idea of where they stand on quality before quality payments will begin. This will allow providers the chance to fine tune their quality practices and data reporting

capabilities before payments will be determined based on a specific provider's quality measures.

For each provider group and facility, as well as Medicare Advantage plans under our legislation, CMS will then begin to make quality payments from a pool that initially will equal one percent of their Medicare payments. Over five years, quality payments will increase to two percent of total payments. Payments will be awarded for meeting performance thresholds and to those who demonstrate a level of improvement specified by CMS. This approach recognizes that we need to offer incentives to a broad base of providers--providers who perform well today deserve recognition; those that might not be performing well, but have improved, also should be recognized. Finally, CMS will report publicly on how various providers, facilities, and plans do with respect to quality. This information will help empower beneficiaries when making their health care decisions and when making informed choices.

Our bill recognizes that the private sector has made a lot of progress in developing and adopting quality measures. There are several value-based purchasing projects underway around the country. We don't want to reinvent the wheel--we want to build on these initiatives. These private projects, along with its own projects, can help inform the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as it works out technical details to implement quality-based payments using the framework established by the MVP Act.

This framework is consistent with the thinking of CMS on quality- based payments as expressed by Administrator Mark McClellan. It also is consistent with principles endorsed today by more than twenty of the Nation's leading consumer, employer, and labor organizations. In announcing the principles, Peter Lee, president and CEO of the Pacific Business Group on Health and co-chair of the Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project stated, ``We must move beyond a system that is performance-blind to one that rewards better quality and gives consumers tools to make informed choices.''

Now some folks may think that Medicare shouldn't take on this issue-- that it might better for the private sector to do it alone. I respectfully disagree with that view. Medicare is the single largest purchaser of health care in the Nation. The IOM in ``Leadership by Example'' expressed its opinion that Federal Government health care programs can significantly influence how care is provided by the private sector. The Commonwealth Fund researchers share this view--that adopting quality payments in Medicare can influence the level of quality in all health care, not just care for the elderly.

And there's a lot of health care to be influenced. Our Nation spent $1.8 trillion on health care last year. Health care spending is expected to reach more than 15 percent of the gross domestic product. But just like in Medicare, we are not always getting the best value for those dollars. That $1.8 trillion in spending translated to a 37th place ranking for the United States compared to other countries around the world, in quality, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Spending more and more money without achieving commensurate improvements in quality is simply wasteful and unsustainable.

Medicare is just one month shy of its fortieth anniversary--a tremendous milestone. It has positively affected the lives of millions of seniors and disabled citizens. We set a goal for ourselves forty years ago--to improve access to care. Providers and policymakers came together to make that goal a reality. It is time for a new goal, a new challenge--to ensure that Medicare beneficiaries and all Americans get the best possible care and that as a nation, we get the highest value for our health care dollars. The MVP Act of 2005 provides us with a road map to live up to that challenge. I urge my colleagues to join me and Senator Baucus in advancing this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kathryn Becker of the staff of Senator Jeffords be allowed the privilege of the floor during consideration of CAFTA.

Mr. President, before I begin my remarks I want to thank the Senator from Montana, the ranking Democrat on the committee, and the former chairman of the committee for his cooperation and good- faith effort to have the Senate and our committee work to get its job done. Even though he has a different view on this legislation than I do, he has been very cooperative in helping things happen, even though he disagreed. I think it is that spirit that gets things done in the Senate. It is kind of the tradition of our committee, but I think it is particularly true of his and my working relationship. So I thank him very much.

I thank the Senator. Following on the spirit of the statement that he made and probably not directly germane to this discussion, though, is also the fact that too often the public draws conclusions that all we do is have partisan fights, Republican and Democrat, and that we are always at each other's throats. I think people, including my constituents in Iowa, get that view because conflict makes news. They never hear of the cooperative efforts that we have made.

In fact, the very week this bill was voted out of committee, we had some differences that were not entirely partisan. There were some Republicans who agreed with Senator Baucus and some Democrats who agreed with me on this bill. It was a very narrow margin in our committee. But that very same week we voted out a bipartisan Energy bill on a 20-to-0 vote, which shows one gets a lot of attention and the other one doesn't. But I think it shows you can have differences and still make the system work.

As you would expect, I have talked about this legislation over a long period of time. I am glad we are to the point of the Senate consideration of it, so it is no surprise to you or anybody else that I support what is referred to as the Dominican Republic-Central America- United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. I am just going to shortly call that the Central American Free Trade Agreement or CAFTA for short.

The bill before us, then, implements the trade agreement that was negotiated between our executive branch and the leaders of these five countries over the past several months. Our President gets the authority to negotiate through what we call the trade promotion authority legislation, where Congress has the constitutional control over international trade; it is our constitutional responsibility. But since it is impossible for 535 Members of Congress to negotiate legislation, we delegate, under strict procedures, the President making those negotiations. These negotiations went on for several months, maybe even over a period longer than a year, and was signed a year ago.

Congress then has the responsibility of considering it. In most cases, we end up agreeing to it, but we pass these free-trade agreements--whether they are bilateral, multilateral or regional--in the form of legislation, so Congress has control over the final product and implements our constitutional responsibility through the agreements being passed by Congress in the form of legislation.

That is where we are now: The Senate's final consideration of adopting a law that includes the contents of the negotiated agreement between the United States and these five countries of Central America.

This agreement strengthens the ties of friendship, cooperation, and economic growth between our Nation and the growing economies of Central America and the Dominican Republic. It is also an agreement that is fundamentally in our national economic and security interests. If it were not in our national economic and security interests, obviously we would have no business having our President negotiate it. Or if it were not in our interests and he did negotiate it, the Congress should not be passing it as law.

Today, when it comes to the economic interests that we have with this

legislation, most imports from the region enter our market duty free. They come from those countries into our market duty free. In contrast, exports from the United States to those countries face a myriad of tariffs and nontariff barriers in the region. That is where we are now. That is the status quo.

I have a chart here that obviously is not going to contain every product. I am not going to have on the chart every product that goes back and forth between our countries. But this chart illustrates, on this side where you see various products--let's say just on grains. I will just go to the first line. We pay now a 10.6-percent tariff to get our products into these countries. If those countries were shipping the same product to us, they would be paying zero tariffs.

Now, with this agreement before the Senate that we are considering, when it is fully implemented--because some of these are phased in--you will see that we will not have any tariffs that we now pay for getting our products into the countries. And of course it has not changed anything for them.

But this chart shows, if we do not do anything, what the status quo is. The status quo is on that side of the chart. It is kind of a one- way street. All the advantages are from products coming from Central America into America. All of the impediments are against products going from the United States down to those countries. So on this side of the chart, after the legislation is passed, you see a two-way street. You see the status quo has ended.

Let's be clear. A vote against this agreement is a vote for the status quo. It is a vote to maintain unilateral trade and to keep tariff barriers to our exports very high. I could say this another way by saying that the ``F'' in Central American Free Trade Agreement, the ``F'' in CAFTA, once we pass it, is really going to make it a Central American Fair Trade Agreement.

You can see what is unfair to American producers now. What is very unfair to American producers now, shipping to those countries down there, becomes a level playing field. It becomes a fair agreement, a fair, level playing field.

A vote against this agreement is a vote that denies logic. Make no mistake, these tariff barriers to our exports are real. They affect everyday Americans, maybe not in a way that they know, but when you study it, you see how it impacts them.

Under the status quo, an off-road loader manufactured by Caterpillar in Peoria and exported to Costa Rica must pay a 14-percent tariff. This is equal to a $140,000 tax on our export. With CAFTA, the tariff goes to zero--not tomorrow, but immediately. This is good news then for those UAW workers at Caterpillar, in Peoria, who make this vehicle within the United States.

On another example under the status quo is microchips produced in New Mexico and/or Oregon face a 10-percent tariff today. With this Central American Free Trade Agreement this tariff barrier is eliminated.

Under the status quo, manufactured auto parts cannot even sell in the Central American market. You don't get them in. It isn't a question of how high is the tariff; you can't get them into the market. Under CAFTA, we will be able to export these manufactured goods to the Central American market. So this means new opportunities for companies such as CARDONE Industries and their workers in Philadelphia, PA.

Under the status quo--in other words, if we didn't pass this agreement--DVDs produced across the country would be subject to tariffs of up to 20 percent before they can be sold to consumers in Central America. But with this agreement becoming law, those DVDs become tariff free, leveling the playing field, being fair to workers in America.

The story is very similar for products that I am very much involved in, in my State of Iowa, products from U.S. farms. Today, over 99 percent of the food and agricultural products that we import from the region of Central America come into the United States duty free, as evidenced by the zeroes there on the second column. Meanwhile, our food and agricultural exports to Central America are hit with an average 11- percent tariff, with some tariffs ranging as high as 150 percent.

CAFTA levels the playing field for U.S. farmers. It takes one-way trade and makes that one-way trade into a two-way street. It tears down unfair barriers to our agricultural exports. It gives our farmers a chance to compete in a growing and vibrant market of 40 million consumers.

If anybody thinks that globalization is bad, do you know what they are saying? They are saying that the United States ought to concentrate on selling to Americans. We make up 5 percent of the world's population; 95 percent of the world's population is outside the United States. That is a market that we need to be competing in. We are an exporting nation--agriculture, manufacturing, services. If we are an exporting Nation and our market is 95 percent of the people in the rest of the world, we have to be playing on that field. This gives us an opportunity to play on that field, not with all the other 95 percent of the people in the world, but at least with 40 million of those consumers who live in these five countries.

These barriers I have just referred to are real for our U.S. farmers. Pork producers in my home State of Iowa face import tariffs from 15 percent to 40 percent. When we have full implementation of this agreement, Iowa producers will be able to export pork products duty and quota free.

Today, rice producers from across the South must overcome in-quota tariff rates of from 15 percent to 60 percent. These tariffs are phased out and eventually eliminated under this agreement.

Prohibitive tariffs of up to 40 percent lock our beef exports out of the Central American market. This agreement provides immediate duty- free, quota-free access for high-quality U.S. beef, with eventual elimination of all tariffs on U.S. beef. And value-added agricultural products, such as breakfast cereal, will see tariffs reduced from 32 percent to zero immediately, providing new opportunities for U.S. workers.

The fact is, virtually every major agricultural producer in the country, in the United States, will benefit from the passage of this agreement, including dairy, Vermont; poultry, Arkansas; apples, Oregon and New York; barley, Montana; frozen french fries, Maine; nuts, New Mexico; dried beans, Wyoming. All in all, the total given to us by economists at the American Farm Bureau Federation is an estimated net gain to U.S. agriculture of nearly $1.5 billion each year upon full implementation.

The agreement also opens the services market to U.S. service exports. Key sector opportunities include telecommunications, banking, insurance distribution, audiovisual and entertainment, energy, transport and construction.

Our high-tech sector stands to benefit; the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica, and El Salvador will join the agreement and eliminate tariffs on imports of high-technology products, thereby saving United States exporters more than $7 million annually on import duties that would be paid today.

The agreement goes far beyond reducing important tariffs, putting into place strong investment protections, anticorruption provisions, intellectual property protections, strong provisions on labor in the environment. This agreement is a solid win for the U.S. economy. It is a solid win also for the neighbors of these Central American countries.

For a third time, I say, let's be very clear. The alternative to this agreement is nothing but the continuation of the status quo. It is unilateral access to our markets and nothing in return for American exports. I don't think the status quo is good enough for our farmers and our workers. I don't think Congress should vote to keep barriers to our exports to these countries high when they can be eliminated. This is what this vote on the Central American Fair Trade Agreement is all about. It all boils down to a vote for unilateral trade and the status quo or a vote to reduce barriers for our farmers and workers. To me it is a very simple answer. Get this agreement passed as fast as we can and bring this level playing field for our farmers, our service industries, our manufacturers.

Too often, we talk in economic terms about trade. There are other compelling reasons to support this agreement.

Over 20 years ago, Congress first opened our markets to products from Central America and the Caribbean. Why did we do that? That part of the world was in turmoil. Central America was a region in great political and economic upheaval. Civil strife, civil war, and political violence were part of daily life. As a result, too many innocent people lost their lives and many more lost their livelihood.

I have a chart of headlines accurately reflecting that gruesome and chaotic violence that was going on at that time. Whether it was Nicaragua, Honduras, or El Salvador, it was constant conflict. The headlines accurately reflect that violence.

So where are we 20 years later? We see a very different Central America. Through sustained political and economic engagement with the region, including the continuation of the unilateral trade preferences for over 20 years, the United States of America has helped this part of the world develop a very different story today. Today, that story is that with progressive leadership of these democratic governments, the people of Central America are enjoying the fruits of freedom, the fruits of democracy that we would describe as elected governments, participatory democracy, choice for the voters, and, as a result, generally stable civil societies.

Now we have this situation in Central America. These leaders, who many of us have had an opportunity to meet with, have given us confidence that this sort of leadership will continue in the future, but these leaders want more for their country. They want to cement the gains of the last 20 years since the civil wars have ended. They want to build a better foundation for that future. Part of that better foundation is the progressive ideas that are articulated in the CAFTA agreement. These ideas came not from the United States but from the leaders of Central America who first approached us with the idea of strengthening our trade relations at the Quebec Summit of the Americas in April 2001.

The fact is that passage of CAFTA is good both for our geopolitical and economic interests. We have very little to lose. We have much to gain with its passage. In contrast, we have much to lose and we have little to gain if this agreement is defeated.

I have a letter displayed from President Carter. He makes the point I just made very well. In that letter he recently wrote, saying through

Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes to explain my action today related to S. 1239, a bill to amend the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. Today, with great reluctance, I asked Leader Frist to inform me before entering any unanimous consent agreements related to consideration of this bill, which the Indian Affairs Committee reported by voice vote this morning.

S. 1239 would pencil the Indian Health Service, IHS, an Indian tribe, a tribal organization, or urban Indian organization to pay the monthly part D premium of eligible Medicare beneficiaries. The bill defines eligible beneficiaries as individuals who are Indian and who are eligible for the part D prescription drug benefit, but who do not receive any additional financial assistance made available under the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003, MMA, to beneficiaries with limited incomes.

I am all for providing assistance in paying premiums for beneficiaries in financial need. We devoted a lot of time to those provisions in the MMA. I am troubled, however, that as currently drafted, S. 1239 would permit the IHS, an Indian tribe, tribal organization, or urban Indian organization to pick and choose who will get premium assistance. Specifically, the bill would allow them to consider an eligible beneficiary's ``expected drug utilization'' and any other factors to determine the cost-effectiveness of paying the beneficiary's premium.

This provision might be an attempt to reflect that the IHS, tribes, and tribal organizations have limited resources. The bill language, however, raises a number of questions. First, how would the IHS and tribes determine expected drug utilization or cost-effectiveness? Would it be based on the number of drugs a person takes or the severity of illness? Second, how would they account for the fact that a beneficiary's drug needs could change dramatically with just one illness? That is the point of having insurance.

When we crafted the MMA, we were keenly aware of the potential for adverse selection--meaning that beneficiaries might wait until they need part D coverage to enroll in part D. This would have the effect of driving up the cost of the part D premium for all beneficiaries. The additional considerations currently included S. 1239 set a dangerous precedent by seemingly promoting adverse selection in the part D program. This is exactly opposite to what we sought to achieve in the

I say to my colleague from Texas that I do agree that our dependence upon foreign sources of energy is dangerously high. It is a threat to our economic stability and national security. We cannot continue to rely on foreign imports for 60 percent of our supplies. We must utilize available domestic resources, and I believe the Energy bill before the Senate is a good step forward.

I say to my colleague that I understand the importance of these provisions in a comprehensive Energy bill. I have supported these in the past and included them in our bill in the 108th Congress. I agree that sensible tax treatment that will promote the development of domestic oil and gas sources should be a part of the final bill. As we move forward to conference, we will work to include these two important provisions.

I agree that energy infrastructure, particularly electric transmission capacity, is a critical component of our domestic energy policy, and I am committed to helping you ensure that it is included in the final energy bill.

Sec. 261, Hydroelectric Relicensing Reform

Mr. President. I rise today to pay tribute to an honorable soldier who has fallen in service to his country. Specialist Casey Byers of the 224th Engineer Battalion died on the 11th of June in Al Taqaddum, Iraq when an improvised explosive device detonated beneath his Humvee. Specialist Byers was a young native of Schleswig, IA, who was only 22 years old. I salute his patriotism and his sacrifice for the sake of freedom.

Specialist Byers was a proud American who joined the Iowa National Guard in1999. He graduated from Ar-We-Va High School in 2001 where he participated in football and track and later attended Iowa Lakes Community College. Specialist Byers graduated from the combat engineer qualification course in July 2004 and volunteered for duty with the 224th in Iraq. This was his second tour of duty in the Middle East.

Casey Byers has earned the highest gratitude of the entire Nation and today I want to recognize him with the respect he deserves. His sacrifice reminds us of the incredibly high cost of ensuring freedom. My prayers go out to Ann and William Byers who grieve the loss of their son, Paul and Jennifer Byers who grieve a lost brother, and his infant daughter Hailey who grieves the absence of her father. I also extend my prayers to all of the family, friends, and neighbors of Casey who are touched by his passing. I ask my colleagues to join me and all Iowans in remembering Specialist Casey Byers. Such men as Casey Byers inspire us to hold in ever higher esteem the ideals of freedom and service. His valor shall certainly not be forgotten.

Mr. President, today I want to pay tribute to the life of Jesse Nichols, Sr., who passed away on February 22, 2005. Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., faithfully served the U.S. Senate for over 30 years. He was the first African American Clerk employed by the U.S. Senate.

Jesse Nichols was born on June 14, 1909, in Clarksdale, MS. He began his service when the late Pat Harrison of Mississippi was the distinguished Chairman of the Finance Committee--the committee I am now privileged to chair.

Jesse was appointed as a messenger for the Finance Committee in 1936, and was elevated about 6 months later to assistant clerk of the Committee. At that time, the staff of the Finance Committee numbered only three.

In 1967, on the occasion of his thirtieth anniversary on the Senate staff, several members of the Finance Committee, led by Delaware Republican John J. Williams, rose in the Senate chamber to pay tribute to Jesse Nichols who had ``earned the respect of those former giants of the Senate, each of whom was proud to call him a friend.''

Senator Williams added that:

It is refreshing to meet a man who throughout the years has

served the Senate and his country with but one thought in

mind, and that is, to do his job to the best of his ability,

always remembering that as a Government employee he is a

servant of the people.

Senate Republican Leader Everett Dirksen added his endorsement, noting that:

Thirty years of faithful and devoted service certainly

deserves to be taken account of in the proceedings of this

body.

An oral history interview conducted by the Senate Historical Office from March 26 to April 12, 1994, is available on the Senate Web site. The history documents Jesse's employment by the Committee on Finance from the 75th Congress through the 91st Congress.

He worked under the guidance of Democratic and Republican Chairmen, including Walter F. George of Georgia, I Senator Eugene Millikin of Colorado, Harry Flood Byrd of Virginia and Russell B. Long of Louisiana.

Jesse Nichols' service was faithful, exemplary and noteworthy. He served not only the Finance Committee with class and grace, but also the Senate as a whole during that critical period in American history. I join my colleagues in recognizing Mr. Nichols' life and am grateful to his service to our country.

S. Res. 168

Whereas Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., faithfully served the United

States Senate and the Committee on Finance as the Government

Documents Clerk and Librarian from nineteen hundred thirty-

seven through nineteen hundred seventy-one;

Whereas Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., was born on June 14, 1909,

in Clarksdale, Mississippi, and was the first African

American Clerk employed by the United States Senate;

Whereas he carried out his duties in exemplary fashion,

bringing credit to the Committee and to Congress;

Whereas Jesse Nichols worked effectively under the guidance

of Democratic and Republican Chairmen, including Pat Harrison

of Mississippi, Walter F. George of Georgia, Harry Flood Byrd

of Virginia and Russell B. Long of Louisiana from the 75th

Congress through the 91st Congress; and

Whereas the Committee on Finance will long remember the

commitment, service and leadership of Jesse R. Nichols, Sr.,

as documented in an oral history posted on the Senate

Historian's website: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States Senate expresses its deep

gratitude and sincere respect for Jesse R. Nichols for his

unfailing service and his dedication to the United States

Senate. The Senate hereby expresses condolences to the family

due to the death of Jesse R. Nichols, Sr., on February 18,

2005.