Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to call up Senate amendment No. 1796.

I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask unanimous consent to lay the amendment aside.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Thank you very much, Mr. President. And I thank my colleague from Utah for his courtesy.

Amendment No. 1797

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. President, this amendment I described earlier today, but let me describe it briefly again because it is very straightforward.

Each year, when the administration sends the Congress its budget request for the Department of Agriculture, it asks for $10 million for nutrition education. It is the Team Nutrition programs sponsored by the Department of Agriculture. This is funding that goes to 21 States to try to assist them in providing nutrition education in the schools. The other 29 States get no funds. My State gets no funds because there is not enough being appropriated. This program cannot cover more than the 21 States that are currently covered. So the children in my State do not get the benefit of this nutrition activity.

Why is nutrition education an important issue for this Congress and this country at this time in our history? I would suggest that the best case for explaining that is set out in this letter which I received from the American Heart Association endorsing the amendment that I am offering on behalf of myself and Senator Lugar. Senator Lugar is the cosponsor of my amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I will read parts of this letter so people can understand the case that is being made.

The American Heart Association letter directed to me, signed by Sue Nelson, Vice President for Federal Advocacy, says:

Overweight and obesity, especially among children, have

merged as serious threats to our Nation's health. Today,

about 16 percent of all children and teens in the United

States are overweight. Obesity is the major risk factor for

coronary heart disease which can lead to heart attack.

Obesity can induce diabetes which makes the danger of heart

attack especially high. Recent research suggests that obesity

shortens the average lifespan by at least 4 to 9 months, and

if childhood obesity continues to increase it could cut 2 to

5 years from the average lifespan. It could cause our current

generation of children to be the first in American history to

live shorter lives than their parents. Besides its toll on

health, obesity contributes significantly to rising health

care costs.

The World Bank has estimated that the cost of obesity is 12 percent of this country's overall health care budget.

The problem is we don't seem to be willing to connect the dots. We don't seem to be willing to say if we spent a little more on something like nutrition education, maybe we would not have to spend 12 percent of our health care budget to deal with the problem of obesity. That is the simple reality.

All I am saying is, let's begin to connect the dots and put a reasonable amount of funding into the effort to provide instruction to children in our schools about how to eat a decent diet and maintain a decent body weight. That is the entire purpose of the amendment.

We used to appropriate more money for nutrition education than we do today. Unfortunately, the last 3 years we have fallen into an automatic $10 million a year. That means no new States can participate in the program. It means no new students can get the benefit of this instruction. To my mind that is not an acceptable circumstance, particularly with this change in the lifestyle of Americans which we see all around us.

We need to provide good information to our young people so they can grow up and lead healthy productive lives. We are not doing that today. When you look around other parts of the Federal budget and say, well, okay, maybe the Department of Agriculture is not providing help with this, but maybe the Department of Education is. They are not. This is the only effort being made by the Federal Government to assist.

We have a lot of lofty statements being made by the administration. I

welcome those statements. We need to follow through with some reality in addition to the statements. The administration has launched an initiative. It refers to this initiative as the Healthier United States School Challenge, and it focuses on helping children to live longer, better, and healthier lives.

Our former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman and the U.S. Department of Agriculture announced in July that the school challenge builds upon the team nutrition program and recognizes schools that have obtained nutrition and physical activity standards. So we are announcing initiatives and calling them the Healthier United States School Challenge, but we are not willing to put in funds to allow the programs to be available to most children in this country. To my mind, that is not a responsible course. We can do better.

I offered an amendment similar to this 2 years ago in the Senate when the Agriculture appropriations bill came up. At that time I was told, no, there is no money; we cannot afford to do this. I withdrew the amendment at that time and I was encouraged because both the managers of the bill advised they would try to find additional funds. They were not able to do that. I am sure in good faith they tried. They were not able to do that. Accordingly, we are still at $10 million.

I don't know of any other way to get this issue dealt with other than to ask the Senate to please vote on this. Please support my amendment and Senator Lugar's amendment and increase this funding. The offset we have chosen is one that is called CCE, common computer environment. It is a $128 million item in the budget for improving the coordination of the computing in the various parts of the Department of Agriculture. I am sure it is a worthy purpose, but I would be willing to see that reduced by $10 million so we could put that $10 million into child nutrition education. That is the purpose of that amendment.

I hope my colleagues will support it. At this time I have used my 10 minutes and I will go ahead and yield the floor and have a chance to explain it very briefly before the actual vote occurs.

I will speak for another couple of minutes.

I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Murkowski and Senator Coburn as cosponsors of this amendment.

Mr. President, let me make one point. This is requesting that we double the size of this program, but at the current time, we are spending 21 cents per child per year on nutrition education out of the Federal Government. This is suggesting we might want to spend up to 42 cents per child per year.

I remember when I offered this amendment 2 years ago, Senator Byrd said we ought to at least provide as much per child as it costs to buy a candy bar. I thought that was pretty good insight.

I see my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Coburn, wishes to speak briefly.

Mr. President, this amendment is being offered by myself, Senator Lugar, Senator Murkowski, and Senator Coburn. The amendment would add $10 million for child nutrition to the program that already exists in the Department of Agriculture called Team Nutrition. This is the only significant Federal effort we have to assist with nutritional education in our schools.

Today, it is drastically underfunded. This would allow us to add $10 million. Instead of spending 21 cents per child per year in this country on nutritional education from the Federal Government, we would be spending 42 cents.

This is an amendment that I think all Members should support. Clearly, this is needed to deal with the problem of childhood obesity that is becoming an epidemic in our society.

I hope my colleagues will all support this amendment.

I ask unanimous consent John Smeltzer, a fellow in my office, be granted privilege of the floor during the pendency of this bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to preserve a special place in my home state of New Mexico, the Valle Vidal.

New Mexico is a State filled with natural wonders, so when you hear people referring to the Valle Vidal as ``New Mexico's Yellowstone'' you have to stop and take notice. Any visitor to the place won't find it hard to see what inspires such a grand comparison. The scenic and wildlife features of the Valle Vidal stand out, even in the spectacular country of northern New Mexico.

For decades the area was admired from afar by the public as a famous private hunting and fishing ranch, until it was finally taken into public ownership in 1982. Since then, the Valle Vidal has become a premier destination for all manner of lovers of the outdoors. Whether you are drawn to its beautiful aspen stands, its wide meadows and the spectacular views they afford, its abundant wildlife, or the outstanding camping opportunities that the Boy Scouts take advantage of every year, there is much to cherish in the Valle Vidal.

As the home and crucial wintering ground of the State's largest elk herd the area is of iconic value to New Mexican hunters. The elk herd is so prized that the State only allows for a once-in-a-lifetime permit to hunt there. I am told those that do get a permit rarely return unhappy.

The Valle Vidal is also home to native Rio Grande cutthroat trout and will play an important role in the State's plans to recover that species from its depressed numbers today.

The Forest Service has recognized the unique values of the Valle Vidal and manages the area with a special emphasis on wildlife but they are required under current law to consider developing the eastern half for coalbed methane production. They have completed their estimates of the available gas resources under the Valle Vidal and any further analysis would be the responsibility of the lessee. Based on the estimates the Forest Service has done it is clear that, although there is certainly money to be made drilling for gas in the Valle Vidal, the amounts that could be produced are of no national significance. The Forest Service has begun the process of amending their management plan for the area and would later begin analyzing the potential conflicts that drilling would encompass sometime late next year. This bill would remove the need for the second part of that process.

New Mexico has significant coalbed methane resources in both the Raton Basin, where the eastern half of the Valle Vidal is, and the San Juan Basin. In fact, the San Juan basin is one of the Nation's foremost natural gas production areas, generating about 1 trillion cubic feet of gas each year. New Mexico is one of this country's foremost producers of oil and natural gas and we are proud of what we do for our Nation's energy picture. But New Mexicans are also proud of our wild country. The places we love define our character as much as the work we do.

The undefinable characteristic of being a New Mexican is shown the most clearly in the places we cherish--the places that we recognize as so special that we want to set them aside for our children and our grandchildren. This is particularly true when it is not an easy choice to set them aside. It would be easy to simply pursue resources wherever we find them. We certainly need the energy and have shown remarkable ingenuity in extracting oil and gas from places previously thought unreachable and with gradually lessening effects on the surrounding landscape. But our essential character is revealed in making the harder choice to slow down and recognize that some places are special and warrant special treatment. The Valle Vidal is such a special place.

Even if there were significant gas resources under the Valle Vidal it would be very difficult to risk turning it into an industrial zone. But we don't really face that choice here. The eastern half of the Valle Vidal comprises less than 1 percent of the gas-producing Raton Basin. According to the Forest Service, even with the most optimistic projections the gas resources are less than one-half of 1 percent of the Raton Basin resources. Using those same projections and even with intensive development we could only expect enough gas to come out of the Valle Vidal over its 20 year development to meet our Nation's gas needs for less than 3 days. In short, drilling the Valle Vidal wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in our national energy picture.

The Raton Basin will continue to be developed and I'm sure we will continue to find additional areas in New Mexico to meet this nation's growing energy needs but I hope we can set aside this place to meet some of our other needs. Our need to get outside and experience the best the natural world has to offer. By creating the Valle Vidal National Preserve with this bill we can take the opportunity to preserve an essential piece of New Mexican character and demonstrate once again that value is more than a question of dollars and cents.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation to preserve a special place in my home state of New Mexico, the Valle Vidal.

New Mexico is a State filled with natural wonders, so when you hear people referring to the Valle Vidal as ``New Mexico's Yellowstone'' you have to stop and take notice. Any visitor to the place won't find it hard to see what inspires such a grand comparison. The scenic and wildlife features of the Valle Vidal stand out, even in the spectacular country of northern New Mexico.

For decades the area was admired from afar by the public as a famous private hunting and fishing ranch, until it was finally taken into public ownership in 1982. Since then, the Valle Vidal has become a premier destination for all manner of lovers of the outdoors. Whether you are drawn to its beautiful aspen stands, its wide meadows and the spectacular views they afford, its abundant wildlife, or the outstanding camping opportunities that the Boy Scouts take advantage of every year, there is much to cherish in the Valle Vidal.

As the home and crucial wintering ground of the State's largest elk herd the area is of iconic value to New Mexican hunters. The elk herd is so prized that the State only allows for a once-in-a-lifetime permit to hunt there. I am told those that do get a permit rarely return unhappy.

The Valle Vidal is also home to native Rio Grande cutthroat trout and will play an important role in the State's plans to recover that species from its depressed numbers today.

The Forest Service has recognized the unique values of the Valle Vidal and manages the area with a special emphasis on wildlife but they are required under current law to consider developing the eastern half for coalbed methane production. They have completed their estimates of the available gas resources under the Valle Vidal and any further analysis would be the responsibility of the lessee. Based on the estimates the Forest Service has done it is clear that, although there is certainly money to be made drilling for gas in the Valle Vidal, the amounts that could be produced are of no national significance. The Forest Service has begun the process of amending their management plan for the area and would later begin analyzing the potential conflicts that drilling would encompass sometime late next year. This bill would remove the need for the second part of that process.

New Mexico has significant coalbed methane resources in both the Raton Basin, where the eastern half of the Valle Vidal is, and the San Juan Basin. In fact, the San Juan basin is one of the Nation's foremost natural gas production areas, generating about 1 trillion cubic feet of gas each year. New Mexico is one of this country's foremost producers of oil and natural gas and we are proud of what we do for our Nation's energy picture. But New Mexicans are also proud of our wild country. The places we love define our character as much as the work we do.

The undefinable characteristic of being a New Mexican is shown the most clearly in the places we cherish--the places that we recognize as so special that we want to set them aside for our children and our grandchildren. This is particularly true when it is not an easy choice to set them aside. It would be easy to simply pursue resources wherever we find them. We certainly need the energy and have shown remarkable ingenuity in extracting oil and gas from places previously thought unreachable and with gradually lessening effects on the surrounding landscape. But our essential character is revealed in making the harder choice to slow down and recognize that some places are special and warrant special treatment. The Valle Vidal is such a special place.

Even if there were significant gas resources under the Valle Vidal it would be very difficult to risk turning it into an industrial zone. But we don't really face that choice here. The eastern half of the Valle Vidal comprises less than 1 percent of the gas-producing Raton Basin. According to the Forest Service, even with the most optimistic projections the gas resources are less than one-half of 1 percent of the Raton Basin resources. Using those same projections and even with intensive development we could only expect enough gas to come out of the Valle Vidal over its 20 year development to meet our Nation's gas needs for less than 3 days. In short, drilling the Valle Vidal wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference in our national energy picture.

The Raton Basin will continue to be developed and I'm sure we will continue to find additional areas in New Mexico to meet this nation's growing energy needs but I hope we can set aside this place to meet some of our other needs. Our need to get outside and experience the best the natural world has to offer. By creating the Valle Vidal National Preserve with this bill we can take the opportunity to preserve an essential piece of New Mexican character and demonstrate once again that value is more than a question of dollars and cents.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside.

I call for consideration of amendment No. 1706.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, this amendment deals with a most urgent matter. It is an amendment I offer on behalf of myself, Senator Landrieu, Senator Reid, Senator Kennedy, Senator Mikulski, Senator Dodd, Senator Akaka, Senator Clinton, Senator Murray, Senator Dayton, Senator Schumer, Senator Lieberman, and as I mentioned, Senators Lautenberg and Corzine.

The purpose of the amendment is to provide some level of temporary and immediate short-term relief to local school districts and communities that have been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. With great sadness, all of us, I am sure, have watched the faces of children who have been impacted by this terrible tragedy. Some of those children have literally lost everything. They have lost their family members, they have lost their homes, their schools, and their entire communities.

Officials in the Department of Education estimate there are 330,000 children from Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, who have been displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Many of these children are now homeless and have taken up residence in emergency shelters in one State or another.

I am confident everyone in the Senate wants to do what is right by these children. What has happened at the State and local level is amazing to watch, the way communities have come out to assist; the way families, individuals, volunteers, nonprofit organizations have come to the assistance of these children. Continuing the education of these children needs to be a top priority.

Right now, there are hundreds of thousands of children from New Orleans and Gulfport and Biloxi and Pascagoula who are sitting at desks. Some of those are in Baton Rouge, some in Houston, some in Wichita, or Albuquerque, Memphis, Olympia, or even Philadelphia. These schools have not only opened their doors to these displaced children, they have also provided these students with classrooms, with teachers, with books, with supplies, with equipment and, most importantly, with a quality education.

The obvious question is, What are the resources they are calling upon to do this? We know many of our school districts already face significant fiscal constraints. How can we expect these school districts to educate hundreds of thousands of additional children without additional resources?

We should act now and provide some immediate relief to assist the transition of these students into their new and, hopefully, temporary classrooms. I am, however, very concerned that some of the ideas that have been discussed, at least in news accounts, are problematic and could get us into a difficult circumstance in Washington.

For example, the Washington Post had an article that some believe this tragedy is a new opportunity to proceed with a large-scale voucher system and use these children to experiment on how to implement a voucher system. That would be a very unfortunate course to follow. As everyone in this Senate knows, when the subject of vouchers comes up, we have a great deal of disagreement. We should not be debating new experimental ways of providing educational assistance as part of our effort to assist these children in these circumstances.

Another example of a concern, a problem that I have seen reference to, is the suggestion in one piece of legislation that we should require these displaced students to wear identifying insignia to differentiate them from the other students in their new schools. Obviously, there are all sorts of reasons we should not visit that kind of a requirement on these students at this point.

The officials at the State level, at the local level, and at the Federal level, are just beginning to assess the magnitude of the devastation that has been experienced. Unfortunately, we have already begun to see the extent of the damage to some of the schools on the gulf coast. I understand the New Orleans School District, in particular, has been almost completely destroyed. Many schools in the region are still completely flooded and remain underwater and will have to be rebuilt completely. Others suffered extensive water and wind damage and remain unsafe.

Last week the HELP Committee received testimony from Dr. Diane Roussel, the superintendent of schools in Jefferson Parish, LA, which has 85 schools, 51,000 students, 3,600 teachers, that lies south of New Orleans. It was directly in the path of Katrina. Dr. Roussel testified that in Jefferson Parish, much like the rest of Louisiana, the local tax base provided for much of the district's resources, and any surpluses the district had have now been expended. Jefferson Parish and many other school districts impacted by Hurricane Katrina are totally out of money, are not able to pay their teachers, are not able to conduct school in any way.

Dr. Roussel said in her testimony:

Money is not always the answer to solving the ills of our

public schools, but when you are talking about equipment,

supplies, rebuilding, and maintaining a teaching workforce,

money is the answer.

Communities cannot thrive without their schools. Families will not return to these communities if their children do not have a place to go to school. Local businesses cannot survive if those families do not return to those communities.

Rebuilding the schools has to be a first priority, not a last priority. These communities need our help now. The extent of the devastation is known by all, or at least we are beginning to know.

Let me mention one other area of great concern that we try to address in this amendment, the issue of displaced college students. There are literally tens of thousands of displaced college students. The colleges in the New Orleans area have been devastated by this storm. I am very encouraged to see the way other States, other educational institutions have stepped up to provide assistance.

In my own State of New Mexico, we have some examples of that. New Mexico State University has welcomed the University of New Orleans baseball team to Las Cruces. Members of the University of New Orleans baseball team will be going to school at New Mexico State University and playing baseball there as the New Orleans team.

The Federal Government needs to step up to the plate and do all it can, and do so right now. The amendment does not attempt to meet all the needs we will be identifying resulting from this catastrophe, but it does begin the process. It does indicate that the Senate believes it needs to be a priority to provide some immediate relief. These communities need to know now that we are willing to act to help them.

It provides temporary assistance to school districts experiencing unexpected increases in their student populations because of Katrina. It provides funds, grants to school districts, it facilitates the temporary placement of students in elementary and secondary schools within their jurisdiction, and it helps to ensure that quality instruction is available.

This is a very worthwhile amendment and one that we should adopt as part of this first appropriations bill being considered since we have returned from the August recess. I hope very much my colleagues will agree to add this to the bill.

I understand there will be a point of order raised in connection with this, but I urge my colleagues to vote with me to override that point of order.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues from Massachusetts and Louisiana, Senators Kerry and Landrieu, in support of this amendment to provide assistance to businesses and farmers who are facing serious economic injury from the current run-up in fuel prices.

This amendment would establish a 4-year pilot program to provide emergency relief through affordable, low-interest Small Business Administration and Department of Agriculture disaster loans to small businesses and farms harmed by significant increases in the price of fuels. Small businesses have narrow operating margins and limited reserves to cover unexpected or significant increases in costs, and commercial loans are not available to respond to this kind of situation. Existing disaster loan programs must be expanded so that small businesses and farms will be able to tap into the capital they need to manage their way through this period of high fuel prices. Without action by the Congress, many small businesses and farms will be confronted with higher costs, reduced profits and likely layoffs.

The Senate has this opportunity to reconsider, and again pass, legislation that would provide vital relief. This amendment has enjoyed bi-partisan support for several years. I was pleased to be a cosponsor with over 30 colleagues when it was first introduced in the 107th Congress as S. 295, and when it was reintroduced in this Congress as S. 269. Most recently, in June, the Senate passed this measure as section 303 of the comprehensive energy legislation. Unfortunately, like other Senate passed provisions, it ended up on the cutting room floor during the conference with the House. Now, however, the need to assist businesses and farms that are being injured by skyrocketing fuel prices is far greater than it was in June.

Businesses in New Mexico have expressed concern about prices and urged support for this bill and I know that their experience is shared by businesses across the Nation. Last Tuesday, the Energy Committee held hearings on the fuel price crisis and heard sobering testimony about the constraints on oil supply and on the expectation for sustained high prices for other fuels as well.

I ask that letters from the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce and from the Los Alamos Chamber of Commerce in support of this amendment be printed in the Record. I very much appreciate their endorsement of this Senate effort to respond

to the need of small businesses as they struggle with high fuel prices. The catastrophe along the gulf coast has made a bad situation worse, and we have a responsibility to provide assistance to those who need a way to sustain their businesses during this crisis.

I urge my colleagues to again support this amendment, as it was supported in June, so that our businesses and farms will receive the assistance they so desperately need.

Mr. President, America's future, indeed the world's future, will be more powerfully influenced by science and technology than ever before. Where once nations measured their strength by the size of their armies and arsenals, in the world of the future, knowledge and innovation will matter most.

The Advanced Technology Program, ATP, at the National Institutes of Standards is a modest Government program, $140 million for fiscal year 2006, that helps spur the development of technologies that create the industries and the high-wage jobs of the future.

What sets this program apart from our other publicly supported R&D programs is that it focuses on the technology needs of American industry, not those of the Federal Government. Its pre-competitive research nonetheless addresses many of America's most pressing widespread challenges including improving homeland security, strengthening our manufacturing processes, and lowering our dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Awards are made strictly on the basis of rigorous peer-reviewed competitions. Additionally, it has very strict cost-sharing rules, and it does not fund product development.

The Advanced Technology Program fills a unique role in U.S. innovation policy. ATP bridges the gap, the so-called ``valley of death'' between innovative ideas arising from basic research in the laboratory, and the access to market capital to commercialize them.

Federal funding for R&D is currently in decline, hovering at about half of its mid-1960s peak of 2 percent of GDP. Excluding spending on defense, homeland security, and space, Federal investment in fundamental research is expected to decline in real terms over the next 5 years.

Although industry funds nearly 65 percent of U.S. research and development, growth in industrial R&D is slowing. Moreover, industry concentrates most of its R&D on near-term product and process improvements. Truly radical innovation is often left to new firms, which often have difficulty attracting capital. Venture capital firms steer away from high-risk technology development because profits are too uncertain or too distant. In fact, less that 1.5 percent of venture capital funding is available for proof-of-concept, or seed funding, and early product development.

However, through partnerships with the private sector, ATP's early stage investment accelerates the development of innovative, high-risk, high-pay-off, longer-term efforts to develop technologies that promise significant commercial profits and widespread benefits for the Nation.

The administration's own analysis documents that the ATP program has generated $17 billion in economic benefits from just 41 of the 736 projects it has completed, a truly staggering rate of return on taxpayers' investments. In a comprehensive review of ATP in 1991, the National Academy of Sciences' National Research Council found that it was a highly rated public-private partnership program that spurred the development of new technologies and concluded that ``the ATP it could use more funding effectively and efficiently.''

It is no wonder that nations from around the world are intensely interested in learning more about how our ATP process works in order to fine tune their own national efforts in innovation. In an effort to boost their economic growth, Taiwan, Australia, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom are all developing programs based on major features similar to our Advanced Technology Program.

So why, a reasonable person might ask, are we trying to kill what other nations are trying to copy?

That is one of the key questions the Senate must address when considering the proposed amendments to the Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations measure that would cripple the Advanced Technology Program.

Other countries are coming up fast behind us on the technology track and are pouring resources into their scientific and technological infrastructure. If current trends continue, there is a very good chance that U.S. competitiveness in key high-tech areas may fall behind.

When we talk about competitiveness, what we mean is our capacity to increase the real income of all Americans by producing high-value products and services that meet the test of world markets. The fact that we need to be competitive in the global market is not some mere abstraction, nor is it some future worry that we have time to ignore today.

High-tech R&D today is so enmeshed in our economy that it is part and parcel of the jobs and growth issue. The relationship between innovation and economic growth has only increased in recent years as the world shifts to an increasingly knowledge-based economy. The way we should think about it is that knowledge drives innovation, innovation drives productivity, and productivity drives our economic growth.

ATP has helped drive economic growth in my State of New Mexico by partnering with companies of all sizes and non-profits encouraging them to take on greater technical challenges.

An ATP project funded in 1991 teamed six top printed wiring board suppliers and users and Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque to address technical deficiencies that had developed due to cutbacks in corporate research budgets. The U.S. industry which had been losing market share at the time, dropping from 42 percent to 26 percent, was able to turn around this decline because of research co-funded by ATP. Over 200,000 jobs were rescued.

ATP projects in New Mexico have also included joint efforts with Cabot Superior MicroPowders in Albuquerque to reduce the amount of precious metals used in the manufacturing process to reducing the costs of fuel cells. Star Cryoelectronics in Santa Fe linked up with ATP on technology to enable rapid identification of particulate contaminants and defects during semiconductor fabrication. ATP along with MesoFuel in Albuquerque is developing a technology to generate pure hydrogen reliably and safely.

The need for the Advanced Technology Program has never been more apparent. We have absolutely no choice but to emphasize what we do best in this fierce global competition.

Our most important strength has always been innovation. Our can-do spirit of commercializing technological innovation has always been America's core competence. And today that ability is further honed by the Advanced Technology Program that enables us to innovate better and faster than anyone else.

Rather than cutting back on our investments in the future, we must continue to invest in proven programs like ATP to develop the technologies to create the new industries that will provide solid economic growth in the years to come.

Mr. President, Senator Smith and I are introducing legislation today that would allow more students in our Nation to take full advantage of the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

Since it was signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit has annually helped millions of students reduce the cost of going to college. In 2003 alone, more than 7.3 million college students claimed this and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. This credit, which can be as much as $1,500, has helped families offset the increasing cost of college--costs that have gone up 51 percent at public 4-year colleges, 36 percent at private 4-year colleges and 26 percent at public 2-year colleges over the past decade.

Unfortunately, many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students that attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those at many of our Nation's community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit. As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room, board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges.

The bill addresses this inequity, by allowing the Hope scholarship tax credit to cover expenses associated with fees, books, supplies, and equipment. To limit the bill's cost, a student's room, board and related expenses would remain excluded. It is important to note that the Tax Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre-paid tuition plans. Our bill, reasonably, covers a much more limited subset of these same expenses.

In addition, the legislation changes the Tax Code so that any Federal Pell grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending 4-year public colleges. However, since the Hope tax credit will remain non- refundable, the costs of these changes will remain low.

Both of these modest changes will make college more affordable to many students and families that do not currently benefit from many of the other tax provisions that are targeted to more wealthy families. For many of these students, the ability to get the maximum amount of the tax credit may be the difference in the student being able to take an additional class or not having to sit out a semester.

This legislation is supported by the American Council on Education, the United States Student Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and a number of other prominent higher education organizations.

Mr. President, Senator Smith and I are introducing legislation today that would allow more students in our Nation to take full advantage of the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit.

Since it was signed into law by President Clinton in 1997, the Hope Scholarship Tax Credit has annually helped millions of students reduce the cost of going to college. In 2003 alone, more than 7.3 million college students claimed this and the Lifetime Learning tax credit. This credit, which can be as much as $1,500, has helped families offset the increasing cost of college--costs that have gone up 51 percent at public 4-year colleges, 36 percent at private 4-year colleges and 26 percent at public 2-year colleges over the past decade.

Unfortunately, many students and their families are unable to take advantage of the maximum amount of the credit because it is limited to covering ``tuition and related expenses.'' Students that attend colleges with lower tuition costs, such as those at many of our Nation's community colleges, are not entitled to the maximum amount of the credit. As we all know, tuition is just one of the many expenses associated with going to college. Room, board, books, supplies, equipment and fees can be prohibitively expensive for those who attend colleges that have reasonable tuition charges.

The bill addresses this inequity, by allowing the Hope scholarship tax credit to cover expenses associated with fees, books, supplies, and equipment. To limit the bill's cost, a student's room, board and related expenses would remain excluded. It is important to note that the Tax Code commonly recognizes non-tuition expenses, including substantial living expenses, in programs such as section 529 plans and tax-exempt, pre-paid tuition plans. Our bill, reasonably, covers a much more limited subset of these same expenses.

In addition, the legislation changes the Tax Code so that any Federal Pell grants and Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants students receive are not counted against their eligible expenses when Hope eligibility is calculated. This change will provide some assistance to needier students, especially those attending 4-year public colleges. However, since the Hope tax credit will remain non- refundable, the costs of these changes will remain low.

Both of these modest changes will make college more affordable to many students and families that do not currently benefit from many of the other tax provisions that are targeted to more wealthy families. For many of these students, the ability to get the maximum amount of the tax credit may be the difference in the student being able to take an additional class or not having to sit out a semester.

This legislation is supported by the American Council on Education, the United States Student Association, the American Association of Community Colleges, the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, the Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, and a number of other prominent higher education organizations.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak on behalf of my amendment that would allocate $2 million for methamphetamine education programs in our Nation's schools. I am very pleased that this measure has been included in the underlying bill, and I would like to take a moment to explain why this amendment is so important.

Over the August recess I traveled throughout New Mexico to discuss the challenges local communities are facing in confronting problems associated with meth. I met with law enforcement, health officials, prosecutors, citizens, and State and local representatives. At each place I visited--Moriarty, Roswell, Farmington, Belen, Santa Fe, Taos, and Albuquerque--the message was clear: methamphetamine is the most serious drug threat that we are facing and we must do more to fight the spread of this epidemic.

Indeed, the National Association of Counties recently released a report that found that 58 percent of counties surveyed viewed meth as their largest drug problem, and 70 percent of law enforcement reported that robberies and burglaries have substantially increased due to meth use in their communities. And according to the DEA, there were some 16,000 meth lab seizures last year, up from 912 in 1995. In New Mexico, the number of labs seized increased fivefold from 1998 to 2003. The drug is particularly harmful because of its impact on the user, the likelihood of exposure to chemicals during the drug production process, and the high cleanup costs associated with dismantling labs.

We must address this issue in a comprehensive manner by reducing domestic production, providing law enforcement with the tools they need to fight the meth epidemic, disrupting the importation of meth or its precursor chemicals into the United States, and by developing effective education and treatment programs.

With regard to limiting domestic production, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Combat Meth Act, which was introduced by Senators Talent and Feinstein, and included in the CJS appropriations bill. The bill would curb production by moving pseudoephedrine, the primary ingredient in meth and a common ingredient in cold medicines, behind the pharmacy counter. After Oklahoma enacted a similar law meth production dropped by over 80 percent in 1 year. The bill also provides additional funding for law enforcement and creates a research and training center aimed at developing effective treatments for meth users.

I am also pleased that the CJS appropriations bill provides funding for the COPS meth program to assist local law enforcement obtain the equipment they need to safely and effectively clean up meth labs. I was very disappointed that the President proposed cutting the total COPS program by 96 percent and the meth portion of the program by 62 percent. Fortunately, the Appropriations Committee rejected the administration's proposal and included over $60 million for the COPS meth program, which is about $5 million more than last year. Since 1994, New Mexico has received over $68 million in COPS grants and more than $860,000 specifically under the COPS meth program. The administration also proposed cutting the HIDT A program by more than 50 percent, from $226 million to $100 million. These cuts, if enacted, would have significantly impacted our ability to fight the importation of meth from countries such as Mexico. Thankfully the Senate rejected this proposal as well.

However, I believe that we should also be focusing more on prevention by educating youth on the dangers of using meth. Along with enhanced law enforcement, prevention and education are key to combating meth. My amendment would provide funding for grants to law enforcement and health and school officials to carry out meth education prevention efforts in schools across the country. This funding could be used by local officials to tailor curriculum to the needs of their local comminutes and purchase the materials they need to educate youth on the dangers of meth.

According to ONDCP, there is a 95-percent chance that a first-time meth user will become addicted. Once kids get addicted there aren't a lot of treatment options and they often face tough criminal sanctions for using the drug. We need to emphasize education prevention efforts so we can stop people from going down a hard-to-reverse path riddled with crime and devastating health effects.

Because the consequences of meth use are so visibly evident, such as rotting teeth and open sores, students will likely be more receptive to such information than with other drugs, such as marijuana, that are normally the target of drug education prevention efforts in schools. The ingredients used in the production of meth, such as battery acid, antifreeze, kitty litter, lithium batteries, also create an opportunity to make children understand the dangerous nature of this drug.

According to a report issued this month by the Substance Abuse and Metal Health Services Administratior, SAMHSA, there were 583,000 current users of meth in 2004 aud 1.4 million persons ages 12 and older have used meth in the past year. By providing additional resources for prevention and education, I believe that we can make considerable headway in fighting this terrible epidemic, and I am glad that the Senate has acted on this important measure.

Mr. President, on Friday, September 9th the Nation honored two of our fallen heroes with the unveiling of their names at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial here in Washington, DC. Officers Michael King and Richard Smith of the Albuquerque Police Department were killed in the line of duty on August 19, 2005, a day that has become known as ``The Saddest Day'' to the residents of Albuquerque. The officers were in the process of taking into custody a mentally unstable man who had allegedly murdered 3 other people. Their actions on that fateful day saved the lives of countless others and were exemplary of the way these two fine officers lived their lives.

I speak today to honor Officer King and Officer Smith not for the way they died but for the way they lived--examples of honesty, dedication, commitment, and caring to the countless lives that they touched through their work and in their private lives. The residents of Albuquerque and New Mexico have taken these officers and their families to their heart. Now the Nation has the opportunity to honor these fine men.

Officer Michael King joined the Albuquerque Police Department in 1980 and spend 11 years in the traffic unit until he retired. But King missed the camaraderie of the force and his fellow officers and he returned to work in the traffic unit. Often referred to as a ``gentle giant,'' Michael would often stop to help stranded motorists fix their cars. Mr. King worked with and trained many of New Mexico's top law enforcement officers and left a lasting impression with them all. Officer King leaves behind a wife and two sons.

Like his good friend Officer King, Officer Richard Smith didn't need to be working that August day. He had retired from APD but he couldn't stay away and returned to service to protect the people of Albuquerque. Officer Smith is remembered as a man who was committed to his family, faith, and public service. He was always ready with a broad smile and a wave. He spent most of his career as a traffic cop and was buried 25 years to the day he graduated from the police academy. Officer Smith leaves behind a wife and a 13-year-old daughter.

These two officers are examples of the best our Nation has to offer. It is right that we honor these men and all the officers who have given their lives to protect their fellow citizens.

Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Florida, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. President, I yield 8 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold, to explain his motion.

Mr. President, how much time remains?

In light of that, I know there are other Members, particularly on the Democratic side, who wish to speak. I believe Senator Domenici has some time to provide.

Mr. President, I would like to engage the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee--Senator Domenici--in a colloquy.

Mr. President, it has come to my attention that section 1289 of the Domenici Energy Policy Act of 2005 could be interpreted as requiring FERC approval of certain foreign transactions wholly outside of the United States.

I am a strong supporter of section 1289 because I believe it is vital, especially since we are repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, that FERC be given the authority it needs to protect U.S. consumers. In my opinion, section 1289 gives FERC the appropriate authority to ensure that utility mergers and acquisitions do not adversely impact consumers. I also think it is appropriate for FERC to be able to ensure that retail customers in the United States do not subsidize foreign acquisitions.

However, Section 1289 could also be interpreted as requiring FERC approval of a holding company's acquisition of a foreign utility where the holding company has no retail customers in this country. A company that has a subsidiary that simply owns generation assets in the United States for wholesale electric sales is also defined as a holding company. As a result, that holding company's acquisition of an electric utility company operating entirely overseas could be interpreted as being subject to FERC's purview as a result of section 1289 of the bill we are considering today.

Subjecting foreign utility acquisitions by holding companies without any U.S. retail customers to FERC oversight could potentially have a chilling effect on investment here in the United States. At a time that we are trying to encourage investment in U.S. generation, we may be dissuading investments coming into the United States if a foreign-based holding company believes its next transaction in Great Britain is going to be subject to a FERC merger review proceeding. Moreover, the ``public interest'' test present in section 203 of the Federal Power Act does not readily fit the situation present with respect to foreign transactions.

I note that section 1289 does give FERC the authority to, by rulemaking, identify types of transactions that will receive expedited Commission review. I certainly believe that the acquisition of a foreign utility company by a holding company with no retail customers in the United States should fall in that category. Other categories of foreign transactions that could possibly be interpreted as being covered by section 1289 also may fall into this category.

I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, with regard to this bill, I want to acknowledge, of course, all of the very complimentary statements many colleagues have made about the good work Senator Domenici and I did on this bill. Clearly, I have myself complimented Senator Domenici for his leadership in this regard many times. The fact is this bill is the result of much good work by many Members, much good work by the staffs of our committee and the staffs of many Members individually, and work that has occurred over a very long period of time. So I think some of the relief some of us are feeling as a result of seeing this finally come to completion is because of the multiple years that have gone into this effort to get a bill we could agree upon.

Every time a bill, particularly a bill of this size and comprehensiveness, comes to the Senate floor, it requires a balancing of those provisions which are positive and constructive with those that are less so, and in some cases are negative. I feel very strongly that the positive outweighs the negative in this bill. There are many provisions that will move us in the right direction.

My colleagues have been alluding to those this morning in many of their statements and there are things we need to come back and try to correct in the future, and we will have that opportunity. There are issues we were unable to address in this bill that we will hopefully be able to address in the coming months that I think also need to be mentioned. All of the discussion has been useful. All of the good work, particularly of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee members, has been appreciated.

I again appreciate very much the process that has been followed in getting us to this point. I compliment all colleagues, and I yield the floor. I know Senator Domenici wishes to make a final statement.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. President, today I introduce legislation that will help address the critical nurse faculty shortage facing our Nation today. The Bureau of Labor statistics estimates that 1,000,000 new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2012. With a nurse faculty workforce that averages 53.5 years of age, we cannot and must not wait any longer to address nurse faculty shortages. Quite simply, we need to educate more doctoral level faculty, or we, as a Nation, will not have enough trained nurses to meet the needs of our aging society.

In a 2002 report, the Commission on Higher Education and the University of New Mexico Health Sciences Center assembled nursing educators, healthcare providers, business organizations, professional associations, legislators, and New Mexico state agencies to develop a statewide strategic framework for addressing New Mexico's nursing shortage. The initiative revealed that 72 percent of hospitals have curtailed services, 38 percent of home care agencies have refused referrals, 15 percent of long term care facilities have refused admissions, and public health offices have decreased public health services. The number one priority listed in the statewide initiative was to double the number of licensed nursing graduates in the State. And yet, this one simple priority is not so simple. With a doctoral nurse faculty of 53.4 years of age, on average, and 46 vacant nurse faculty positions, in New Mexico, the necessary expansion of programs is not possible. New Mexico is not alone in facing nurse and nurse faculty shortages. The nationwide nursing shortage is expected to more than triple, because the average age of the workforce is near retirement, the population is aging and has increasing healthcare needs, and the shortage is one that affects the entire nation.

There is a well-known saying, ``a problem clearly stated is a problem half solved.'' In 2004-2005, over 30,000 qualified nursing school applicants were not accepted into nursing baccalaureate programs. Estimates from the National League for Nursing indicate that over 123,000 qualified applications could not be accommodated in registered nurse educational programs in 2004. The primary reason students are not admitted is lack of trained faculty, funds, and program resources. The real nursing workforce problem that we need to address at the current time is lack of an adequate number of qualified nurse faculty members.

The Nurse Faculty Education Act will amend the Nurse Reinvestment Act, P.L. 107-205, to help alleviate the faculty shortage by providing funds to help nursing schools increase enrollment and graduation from nursing doctoral programs. The act will increase partnering opportunities, enhance cooperative education, help support marketing outreach, and strengthen mentoring programs. The bill will increase the number of nurses who complete nursing doctoral programs and seek employment as faculty members and nursing leaders in academic institutions. By addressing the faculty shortage, we are addressing the nursing shortage.

The provisions of the Nurse Faculty Education Act are vital to overcoming nursing workforce challenges. By addressing nurse faculty shortages, we will enhance both access to care and the quality of care. Our families and our Nation will be well-served by integration of the Nurse Faculty Education Act into the Nurse Reinvestment Act.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed the Record at this point.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bunning, to introduce the Science Park Administration Act of 2005.

This legislation is a result of my travels to Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and India to learn more about their science and technology policies, as well as to discover how they have successfully encouraged similar industries and research entities to work so closely together in these research parks.

Let me discuss some findings from my fact finding trips regarding the role of science parks in economic development.

Last summer, I visited the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park which the Hong Kong Government is funding at $423 million. By 2006, this investment will help construct 10 buildings, over 1 million square feet of office and laboratory space, that will cluster IC design, photonics, biotechnology and information technology.

This science park, like the others I visited in Asia, teams up with the local universities on collaborative research efforts. It has an incubation center with 83 start-up companies, and provides them low cost space, business planning, marketing, and employee training, as well as research and development grants from the Hong Kong Government to overcome the ``valley of death'' challenges so many new technology companies frequently face.

One of the most impressive features of this park is the Integrated Circuit, IC, Design and Development Support Center. This is a user facility with shared state of the art equipment to support the entire IC product development cycle, from initiation design to production release. For example, as many as 16 vendors can combine their designs onto a single wafer, thus reducing initial prototype foundry costs by 94 percent.

I was also briefed on the Hong Kong Cyber Port, another science park devoted solely to information technology, IT, and multimedia companies that trains employees and conducts collaborative research. The Hong Kong Government is investing $2 billion between 2000 and 2007 to house 10,000 IT professionals and 100 IT companies in over 1 million square feet of work space.

The Hong Kong Government's combined investment in developing the infrastructure to attract science-based companies to these two parks is about $400 million annually over a period of six years. On a comparable GDP scale, the United States would have to spend $31 billion annually for that same period for a total of $186 billion.

This past January, I spent 10 days in India reviewing their science and technology policies, and was particularly impressed with their development of Software Technology Parks. These parks were first developed in 1991 by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications as a semiautonomous entity to promote India's developing IT industry. They provide the infrastructure in terms of space, internet access, tax breaks and-one stop clearances for government approvals. Generous tax considerations exempt companies until 2010 from corporate income tax and excise duties on purchased goods.

As my colleagues are aware, the growth rate of India's IT industry have been phenomenal. There are now more than 1,000 companies in 44 such software parks in India, the largest located around Hyderabad and Bangalore considered to be India's ``Silicon Valleys.''. Last year these parks had a combined net export value of $50 billion, up 37 percent from the prior year.

Companies such as Infosys, which maintains software for large firms overseas, are located in these parks, and their 2004 revenues jumped by 50 percent. Last year, they received 1.2 million online job applications; they gave a standardized test to 300,000, interviewed 30,000, and hired 10,000. Much of India's success in the IT industry can be attributed not only to their universities, but to the government's decision 1991 to establish these Software Technology Parks.

Building on that success, and with the government's encouragement, these Software Parks are now set to launch biotechnology parks.

Taiwan's success in the global market place is a result of building the Hsinchu Science Park in the 1980s. Today, Hsinchu has over 100,000 technically trained people, 325 companies, 6 national labs and $22 billion in gross revenue. The government has duplicated these parks in two other locations of the island. The science parks being built throughout Asia are modeled after Taiwan's Hsinchu Science Park.

Let me note that these Asian science parks have several common features:

First the Government commits to provide a first-class infrastructure to accommodate all levels of science-based companies, from small start- ups in incubators to large manufacturing plants.

Second, these parks align companies of similar interests to mutually reinforce each other along the supply and management chain.

Third, the Government provides virtually one-stop shopping for government approvals, even including loans.

Fourth, the Government provides tax incentives, usually in the form of waiving taxes on the first several years of profit, and capital gains on acquired stock.

Fifth, and most importantly, the Government takes the long view of partnering with the local governments to ensure that a trained workforce is readily available to support the parks' growth, by teaming with universities and national laboratories.

If we fail to learn from these Asian success stories, we are in danger of losing the very high technology industries we first started, because the low cost manufacturing operations in Asia are now moving up the value chain to research intensive industries, which the Government facilitates by building science parks.

That leads me to the legislation we are introducing today.

The premise of the legislation is straight forward. It does not pick industry winners or losers. Rather, it simply provides a synergistic science-based infrastructure that companies may compete for and thrive in. Just like in Asia, the government acts as a facilitator not micromanager.

The legislation first proposes a series of competitively peer- reviewed science park planning grants to local governments.

A revolving loan fund in six regional centers is proposed to allow existing science parks to upgrade their infrastructure.

The legislation proposes a loan guarantee fund for the construction of new science parks.

Additionally, the legislation proposes a Science Park Venture Capital Fund similar to SBIC's, that would guarantee debentures issued by the Fund to raise capital for start-up companies trying to bridge that valley of death, where ideas must move from the laboratory to working prototype.

Moreover, the legislation proposes several tax incentives to locate in the park. The full cost of property placed in the park could be deducted in the year it was purchased without regard to the existing caps. Many times high-tech equipment is expensive and loses its value quickly, and this provision would cover that loss. The legislation proposes a flat 20 percent R&D tax credit without regard to any expenditure in the base period to spur greater research investment on a broader range of projects. Finally, the legislation ensures that the status of tax exempt bonds used to fund science park infrastructure remain tax exempt eliminating the uncertainty associated with its interpretation under the Bayh-Dole Act.

I believe this legislation combines many of the best ideas I have discovered on my Asian fact finding trips. I hope it attracts the support from both sides of the aisle as a truly bipartisan effort as we need this type of infrastructure investment more than ever before if we are to successfully compete in today's global environment.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Inouye entitled the Medicaid Health Plan Rebate Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation developed by the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, a policy statement by the American Public Human Services Association on the issue, and a letter of support from the Medicaid Health Plans of America be printed in the Record.

I further ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today with Senators Domenici, Murray, Jeffords, Alexander, Cantwell, Akaka, Reed, Chafee, Leahy, Dodd, and Dayton we introduce legislation entitled the ``Children's Health Equity Act of 2005.''

This legislation would extend provisions that were included in Public Laws #108-74 and 108-127 that amended the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, to permit the states of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin to apply some of their enhanced SCHIP matching funds toward the coverage of certain children enrolling in Medicaid that were part of expansions of coverage to children through Medicaid in those 11 states prior to the enactment of

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senators Rockefeller and Feingold that is similar to S. 2906 in the 108th Congress and will have more to say about this legislation when we return in September.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague, Senator Bunning, to introduce the Science Park Administration Act of 2005.

This legislation is a result of my travels to Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, and India to learn more about their science and technology policies, as well as to discover how they have successfully encouraged similar industries and research entities to work so closely together in these research parks.

Let me discuss some findings from my fact finding trips regarding the role of science parks in economic development.

Last summer, I visited the Hong Kong Science and Technology Park which the Hong Kong Government is funding at $423 million. By 2006, this investment will help construct 10 buildings, over 1 million square feet of office and laboratory space, that will cluster IC design, photonics, biotechnology and information technology.

This science park, like the others I visited in Asia, teams up with the local universities on collaborative research efforts. It has an incubation center with 83 start-up companies, and provides them low cost space, business planning, marketing, and employee training, as well as research and development grants from the Hong Kong Government to overcome the ``valley of death'' challenges so many new technology companies frequently face.

One of the most impressive features of this park is the Integrated Circuit, IC, Design and Development Support Center. This is a user facility with shared state of the art equipment to support the entire IC product development cycle, from initiation design to production release. For example, as many as 16 vendors can combine their designs onto a single wafer, thus reducing initial prototype foundry costs by 94 percent.

I was also briefed on the Hong Kong Cyber Port, another science park devoted solely to information technology, IT, and multimedia companies that trains employees and conducts collaborative research. The Hong Kong Government is investing $2 billion between 2000 and 2007 to house 10,000 IT professionals and 100 IT companies in over 1 million square feet of work space.

The Hong Kong Government's combined investment in developing the infrastructure to attract science-based companies to these two parks is about $400 million annually over a period of six years. On a comparable GDP scale, the United States would have to spend $31 billion annually for that same period for a total of $186 billion.

This past January, I spent 10 days in India reviewing their science and technology policies, and was particularly impressed with their development of Software Technology Parks. These parks were first developed in 1991 by the Ministry of Information Technology and Communications as a semiautonomous entity to promote India's developing IT industry. They provide the infrastructure in terms of space, internet access, tax breaks and-one stop clearances for government approvals. Generous tax considerations exempt companies until 2010 from corporate income tax and excise duties on purchased goods.

As my colleagues are aware, the growth rate of India's IT industry have been phenomenal. There are now more than 1,000 companies in 44 such software parks in India, the largest located around Hyderabad and Bangalore considered to be India's ``Silicon Valleys.''. Last year these parks had a combined net export value of $50 billion, up 37 percent from the prior year.

Companies such as Infosys, which maintains software for large firms overseas, are located in these parks, and their 2004 revenues jumped by 50 percent. Last year, they received 1.2 million online job applications; they gave a standardized test to 300,000, interviewed 30,000, and hired 10,000. Much of India's success in the IT industry can be attributed not only to their universities, but to the government's decision 1991 to establish these Software Technology Parks.

Building on that success, and with the government's encouragement, these Software Parks are now set to launch biotechnology parks.

Taiwan's success in the global market place is a result of building the Hsinchu Science Park in the 1980s. Today, Hsinchu has over 100,000 technically trained people, 325 companies, 6 national labs and $22 billion in gross revenue. The government has duplicated these parks in two other locations of the island. The science parks being built throughout Asia are modeled after Taiwan's Hsinchu Science Park.

Let me note that these Asian science parks have several common features:

First the Government commits to provide a first-class infrastructure to accommodate all levels of science-based companies, from small start- ups in incubators to large manufacturing plants.

Second, these parks align companies of similar interests to mutually reinforce each other along the supply and management chain.

Third, the Government provides virtually one-stop shopping for government approvals, even including loans.

Fourth, the Government provides tax incentives, usually in the form of waiving taxes on the first several years of profit, and capital gains on acquired stock.

Fifth, and most importantly, the Government takes the long view of partnering with the local governments to ensure that a trained workforce is readily available to support the parks' growth, by teaming with universities and national laboratories.

If we fail to learn from these Asian success stories, we are in danger of losing the very high technology industries we first started, because the low cost manufacturing operations in Asia are now moving up the value chain to research intensive industries, which the Government facilitates by building science parks.

That leads me to the legislation we are introducing today.

The premise of the legislation is straight forward. It does not pick industry winners or losers. Rather, it simply provides a synergistic science-based infrastructure that companies may compete for and thrive in. Just like in Asia, the government acts as a facilitator not micromanager.

The legislation first proposes a series of competitively peer- reviewed science park planning grants to local governments.

A revolving loan fund in six regional centers is proposed to allow existing science parks to upgrade their infrastructure.

The legislation proposes a loan guarantee fund for the construction of new science parks.

Additionally, the legislation proposes a Science Park Venture Capital Fund similar to SBIC's, that would guarantee debentures issued by the Fund to raise capital for start-up companies trying to bridge that valley of death, where ideas must move from the laboratory to working prototype.

Moreover, the legislation proposes several tax incentives to locate in the park. The full cost of property placed in the park could be deducted in the year it was purchased without regard to the existing caps. Many times high-tech equipment is expensive and loses its value quickly, and this provision would cover that loss. The legislation proposes a flat 20 percent R&D tax credit without regard to any expenditure in the base period to spur greater research investment on a broader range of projects. Finally, the legislation ensures that the status of tax exempt bonds used to fund science park infrastructure remain tax exempt eliminating the uncertainty associated with its interpretation under the Bayh-Dole Act.

I believe this legislation combines many of the best ideas I have discovered on my Asian fact finding trips. I hope it attracts the support from both sides of the aisle as a truly bipartisan effort as we need this type of infrastructure investment more than ever before if we are to successfully compete in today's global environment.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today with Senator Inouye entitled the Medicaid Health Plan Rebate Act of 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the legislation developed by the Association for Community Affiliated Plans, a policy statement by the American Public Human Services Association on the issue, and a letter of support from the Medicaid Health Plans of America be printed in the Record.

I further ask for unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.