Floor Statements

Mr. President, I have come to the Senate floor to speak briefly, again, about the impact high energy prices are having on consumers and the increasingly misguided filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This is not a new topic for discussion on the Senate floor. Rather, it is one we keep coming back to. Given the increase in oil prices we have seen this year, many of us have been contemplating the administration's decision to continue to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this high-priced environment and have been criticizing the administration's decision in that regard.

Yesterday, oil prices hit $48.35 a barrel. Today, oil futures hit $49 a barrel, just 40 cents under the all-time high of $49.40 a barrel that was reached on August 30.

Market analysts attribute yesterday's sharp increase in prices to trader reactions to the Energy Information Administration's weekly inventory report. U.S. crude inventories dropped by 9.1 million barrels. More surprising was the decrease observed in petroleum product inventories, in particular in heating oil. Distillate inventories plunged by 1.5 million barrels. This may not sound like a lot, but given that this is the season in which stocks are normally built in anticipation of winter heating, it is a significant decline.

In a season in which we should be building stocks, we see national commercial crude stocks at the lowest level since February, and we see draws on the heating oil inventory we have. Heating oil prices have hit all-time highs on the NYMEX this past week, and the crude price, as I mentioned before, is once again near its all-time high.

Curiously, the administration is seeking to remove some 5 million barrels of crude oil from the market in October to continue with the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This does not make good economic sense. The direct effect of removing that 5 million barrels from the market is to add more pressure to what we already know is a very tight market. It is to create even higher energy prices for consumers, and these are the same consumers who have been faced with record energy prices for the entire past year.

According to a recent analysis by the Energy Information Administration, the prices consumers pay for heating oil and natural gas and propane have increased 46 percent since 2000 when the current administration took office. Gasoline prices increased more than 30 percent this year alone. When can we hope that this administration will do something to help consumers fight these high energy costs? How high do prices have to go before we see some action?

Yesterday, rumors began circulating that the administration was contemplating a release of Strategic Petroleum Reserve in response to the disruptions by Hurricane Ivan to U.S. offshore production and oil imports. Reports in this morning's newspapers claim there are two companies that have requested permission to defer their Strategic Petroleum Reserve deliveries. They have requested that authority from the Department of Energy.

This afternoon, the Department of Energy announced that it intends to enter into negotiations with refiners for a loan of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The press release notes that the Secretary has authorized those negotiations concerning that loan. I hope this announcement signals that the administration will start to take a more realistic approach to the current situation in oil markets.

For several months, I have advocated that we should suspend delivery of oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve until prices come down to a more reasonable level. Suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high oil prices makes good economic sense. Diverting high-priced Federal oil into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not make good economic sense.

By filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this high-priced environment, we are effectively paying more for oil now than we would if we waited until prices came down. Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices are high costs American taxpayers unnecessarily. Buy high, sell low is not a good strategy. It puts more pressure on already tight fuel markets and keeps oil prices higher for a longer period.

The royalty-in-kind oil program--that is the program being used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve--was first envisioned in a low- price environment. The Government took oil from domestic producers on Federal lands when prices were low to absorb some of the excess oil. The royalty-in-kind program was used to keep domestic oil prices from falling even further. At that time, we were talking about $14 per barrel of oil. Now we are talking about $50 per barrel of oil. The royalty-in-kind program was not established to help high oil prices stay high, but by taking oil off the market in a high-priced environment, we essentially do that.

Suspending the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not hurt our energy security. The Reserve already has 96 percent of its capacity. It has 670 million barrels that are now in storage--the highest level we have ever had. It currently covers 67 days of import capacity at a level of 10 million barrels per day of imports.

I do not know how this administration can justify its current plan of taking 5 million additional barrels off the market in October at the same time we are talking about granting loans of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, effectively releasing oil to refiners from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I hope the administration will rationalize its position and stop the filling of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for the time being.

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

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

Mr. President, this is an amendment which simply provides that during fiscal year 2005, the Secretary of Defense shall permit the New Mexico Army National Guard personnel to continue performing vehicle and cargo inspection activities in support of Customs and Border Protection and immigration enforcement agencies along the border.

This is work our New Mexico National Guard has been doing now for some time. They do an excellent job. We have 17 full-time guardsmen who are involved with this inspection. They are well trained to accomplish this work. This is work which will be very difficult for the other Federal agencies involved to try to take over themselves. It is important that the National Guard be allowed to continue doing the work. The amendment would accomplish that. It is a very meritorious amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I just want to speak briefly in support of Senator Byrd's amendment as well.

This amendment will make available to the market an additional 19 million barrels of oil that the Federal Government will receive in fiscal year 2005 as in-kind royalties. Without this amendment, the Federal Government would hold this oil off the market by putting it in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in 2005. Because this Federal royalty oil would be sold, under this amendment it would generate an offset of $470 million, which the amendment then proposes to use for important homeland security measures, such as port security grants, aviation passenger screening, the Coast Guard, mass transit grants, and the SAFER Program.

It is important to note that the amendment will not take out of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve any oil that is now in the Reserve.

It is merely suspending further filling of the reserve. Suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve during times of high oil prices makes economic sense. Using Federal dollars to buy high-priced oil for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not make economic sense.

Oil prices hit an all-time high on the NYMEX on August 20, trading at $49.40 a barrel. Today oil is trading at close to $45 a barrel, which represents a price increase of more than 30 percent since the beginning of the year. By filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in this very high-priced environment, we are paying more for oil now than we would if we waited until prices went down.

Filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when oil prices are high costs

American taxpayers unnecessarily. It also puts more pressure on already tight fuel markets and keeps oil prices higher for longer.

The royalty-in-kind oil program used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve was first envisioned in a low-price environment. The Government bought oil from domestic producers on Federal lands when prices were low in order to absorb some of the excess oil. The royalty-in-kind program was used to keep domestic oil prices from falling even further, but we were then talking about below $14 per barrel, not below the $45 per barrel which is currently prevailing. The royalty-in-kind program was not established to help high oil prices remain high, but buying in a high-priced environment has that exact effect.

Suspending the fill of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve does not pose an immediate security threat, as the Senator from Michigan pointed out. The reserve is already 96 percent of capacity, with 669 million barrels now stored. That is the highest level of storage we have ever had in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. It currently covers 67 days of import capacity at a level of 10 million barrels per day of imports. Using scarce Federal dollars to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while failing to fund necessary homeland security measures presents a security threat itself.

Some of you may recall--I think we all recall--that the Senate passed a similar amendment to this to the budget resolution that was considered earlier this year, the Levin-Collins amendment.

I urge support of Senator Byrd's amendment this evening. It will put our limited homeland security dollars to work in the most beneficial way for Americans.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 3636

Health care continues to be among the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy. From 1970 to 2002, the health care consumption doubled from 7 to 14 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Employment in health occupations is projected to increase from 11 million in 2000 to 14 million by 2010. In that same period, the growth rate for new job creation in health care occupations is expected to be 29 percent more than double the growth projected for non-health occupations. Over 5.3 million people will be needed to fill these health-related positions. However, as a nation, we are not educating and training sufficient numbers of healthcare workers and providers, and therefore failing the American people.

There are two ways in which we are failing our citizens. The first is an over-reliance on foreign healthcare workers. Instead of committing ourselves to training and educating Americans, we are importing large numbers of foreigners to meet our public health needs. For example, 25 percent of all physicians in the U.S. are immigrants, as are 16 percent of all laboratory technicians. Although these foreign workers are filling an important void, and are both qualified and competent, thousands of qualified Americans wishing to pursue an education in healthcare fields are turned down every year. It's time we stop importing our skilled workers and start investing in the expansion of a skilled workforce in our own country. In fact, given the recent economic downturn, and the high level of unemployment in our country, preparing Americans to work in an expanding job market such as healthcare is the right thing to do.

The second way in which we are failing the American people is by not educating and training sufficient numbers of racial and ethnic minorities to work in the healthcare system. The racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. healthcare workforce does not reflect that of the general population. For example, while Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans represented 26 percent of the general population in 2002, they only represented 6 percent of physicians.

A recent study of New Mexico healthcare professionals concluded that 88 percent of physicians are non-Hispanic Whites, while only 6.5 percent are Hispanic. Overall, ethnic/racial minorities are inadequately represented in all healthcare professions in New Mexico. Additionally, in my State, 21 percent of Internal Medicine Specialists are international medical school graduates, and so are 15 percent of primary care physicians.

A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study described compelling evidence for the need to increase diversity within the health workforce. Diversity ensures access to healthcare for underserved populations and greater patient satisfaction. Many segments of the U.S. population, particularly minority groups, reside in medically underserved areas. Black and Hispanic health workers are more likely to provide healthcare to Black and Hispanic patients, to serve poor, uninsured, or Medicaid-insured patients, and to locate their practices in underserved

areas. Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority patients are more satisfied with their providers when they are of the same racial/ethnic group.

It is time we invest in our healthcare workforce; in our people; in our future. That is why I am introducing the ``Investing in America's Future Act of 2004'' today. This bill has several components aimed at improving and expanding education and training for healthcare workers.

This bill will provide incentives for Americans to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training. It will also expand the Health Career Opportunities Program, which is aimed at enhancing the academic skills of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and supporting them in successfully entering and graduating from health professions training programs. It creates programs of excellence in health professions education for underrepresented minorities, and a health professions student loan fund for low-income and racial/ethnic minority students. Finally, this bill also establishes a Health Work Advisory Commission, charged with creating a national vision to serve as a map for investing in the health workforce.

We must ensure that qualified Americans who wish to enter the health workforce are able to do so, and we must support the training and education of the generations of Americans to come. In doing so, not only will we help more Americans hold good jobs, but we will also provide better healthcare to underserved and disadvantaged groups.

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

There being two objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

Health care continues to be among the fastest growing sectors of the U.S. economy. From 1970 to 2002, the health care consumption doubled from 7 to 14 percent of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Employment in health occupations is projected to increase from 11 million in 2000 to 14 million by 2010. In that same period, the growth rate for new job creation in health care occupations is expected to be 29 percent more than double the growth projected for non-health occupations. Over 5.3 million people will be needed to fill these health-related positions. However, as a nation, we are not educating and training sufficient numbers of healthcare workers and providers, and therefore failing the American people.

There are two ways in which we are failing our citizens. The first is an over-reliance on foreign healthcare workers. Instead of committing ourselves to training and educating Americans, we are importing large numbers of foreigners to meet our public health needs. For example, 25 percent of all physicians in the U.S. are immigrants, as are 16 percent of all laboratory technicians. Although these foreign workers are filling an important void, and are both qualified and competent, thousands of qualified Americans wishing to pursue an education in healthcare fields are turned down every year. It's time we stop importing our skilled workers and start investing in the expansion of a skilled workforce in our own country. In fact, given the recent economic downturn, and the high level of unemployment in our country, preparing Americans to work in an expanding job market such as healthcare is the right thing to do.

The second way in which we are failing the American people is by not educating and training sufficient numbers of racial and ethnic minorities to work in the healthcare system. The racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. healthcare workforce does not reflect that of the general population. For example, while Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans represented 26 percent of the general population in 2002, they only represented 6 percent of physicians.

A recent study of New Mexico healthcare professionals concluded that 88 percent of physicians are non-Hispanic Whites, while only 6.5 percent are Hispanic. Overall, ethnic/racial minorities are inadequately represented in all healthcare professions in New Mexico. Additionally, in my State, 21 percent of Internal Medicine Specialists are international medical school graduates, and so are 15 percent of primary care physicians.

A recent Institute of Medicine (IOM) study described compelling evidence for the need to increase diversity within the health workforce. Diversity ensures access to healthcare for underserved populations and greater patient satisfaction. Many segments of the U.S. population, particularly minority groups, reside in medically underserved areas. Black and Hispanic health workers are more likely to provide healthcare to Black and Hispanic patients, to serve poor, uninsured, or Medicaid-insured patients, and to locate their practices in underserved

areas. Furthermore, racial/ethnic minority patients are more satisfied with their providers when they are of the same racial/ethnic group.

It is time we invest in our healthcare workforce; in our people; in our future. That is why I am introducing the ``Investing in America's Future Act of 2004'' today. This bill has several components aimed at improving and expanding education and training for healthcare workers.

This bill will provide incentives for Americans to seek and complete high-quality allied health education and training. It will also expand the Health Career Opportunities Program, which is aimed at enhancing the academic skills of students from disadvantaged backgrounds and supporting them in successfully entering and graduating from health professions training programs. It creates programs of excellence in health professions education for underrepresented minorities, and a health professions student loan fund for low-income and racial/ethnic minority students. Finally, this bill also establishes a Health Work Advisory Commission, charged with creating a national vision to serve as a map for investing in the health workforce.

We must ensure that qualified Americans who wish to enter the health workforce are able to do so, and we must support the training and education of the generations of Americans to come. In doing so, not only will we help more Americans hold good jobs, but we will also provide better healthcare to underserved and disadvantaged groups.

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

There being two objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

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

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 2694 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

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

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicare Assurance of Prescription Transition Assistance Act of 2004. It is my hope that this will be put on the Senate Calendar so it can be considered under rule XIV.

Let me give a little background about what this legislation is intended to correct.

As all of us know, this last year we passed a major revision, a major amendment to the Medicare Act. The Medicare Act was passed in 1965. In this last year, the prescription drug bill has been added to it. That was a controversial piece of legislation which I wound up opposing in its final form. I supported the version we passed through the Senate initially. I opposed the version that finally came from the conference and was sent to the President for signature.

But there was one part of that prescription drug legislation that contained a very real benefit for a lot of low-income Americans. That is the $600 subsidy that was made available this year and again next year for Medicare recipients with incomes in this category that allowed them to take advantage of the benefit.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide simply that CMS automatically enroll many of these low-income Medicare seniors and people with disabilities into this prescription drug card in order that they get the benefit of the discount card. Of course, that benefit is hard to quantify. They would get that benefit, but more importantly, they would get access to

this $600 subsidy this year and another $600 subsidy next year, which would go against the cost of prescription drugs they incur during those 2 years.

Underscoring the need for this legislation, yesterday Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging that only 1 million of the more than 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the $600 subsidy under the Medicare prescription drug card are currently enrolled.

This chart makes that point very clearly. The title of this chart is ``Low Enrollment Plagues Prescription Drug Plan.'' This first bullet states that 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for this $600 subsidy. The number of low-income beneficiaries that CMS projected would actually enroll would be 5 million. So 5 million of the 7 million were supposed to enroll. In fact, the number of low-income beneficiaries who have enrolled turns out to be 1 million.

So there are 6 million Americans eligible for the $600 transition assistance under the Medicare prescription drug bill who are not receiving any help. In other words, 14 percent of those who are eligible for this $600 subsidy are actually getting assistance at the present time. Unfortunately, many of those seniors who are eligible live in my home State of New Mexico, and I am very anxious that we provide this benefit to them since it is a part of the law.

The President and the leadership in the Senate have vowed to bottle up any legislation that would reopen the Medicare prescription drug bill at this time, or before the end of this Congress. Unfortunately, that would include bills such as the one I am reintroducing today, which is really intended to ensure that the people who are eligible for the limited benefit provided under this bill actually receive that benefit.

If we are serious about trying to provide assistance to our Nation's most vulnerable low-income seniors and people with disabilities, then we should undertake the rather straightforward but significant step that is called for in this legislation, and that is automatically enrolling those who are eligible for the $600 subsidy into the discount drug card program.

Considering that it is unclear whether the savings offered by the drug discount card itself will amount to much, and that is just hard to quantify, frankly, the main benefit is not the discount card itself; it is the $600 credit which is available to low-income individuals.

Specifically, the $600 is available to any individual whose income is less than $12,569 per year or any married couple whose income is less than $16,862 per year. For those Medicare savings program beneficiaries who get cost-sharing assistance through Medicaid because they have incomes below 135 percent of poverty but are not receiving prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to ensure they will receive the $600 subsidy that those of us in Congress intended they receive.

In fact, when the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 transitional assistance would actually be enrolled.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expected 5 million people of the 7 million--again, as is stated on this chart--including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in my home State of New Mexico, would actually enroll. Under the CMS assumptions, those beneficiaries combined would save $5 billion nationally, or $35 million in my home State of New Mexico, over this 2- year period.

Much of that savings is not going to be realized by those seniors unless we pass the legislation I am introducing today.

Part of the explanation for the low enrollment is the poor advertising campaign that the General Accounting Office has criticized and with which we are generally familiar. This poor advertising campaign included running ads in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and the Hill. Unfortunately, most of the low-income seniors in my State do not subscribe to either Roll Call or the Hill. In fact, they do not know those publications exist.

According to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are even aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the prescription drug bill. So it is hard to believe that 65 percent of those who are eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know the program exists.

Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for this automatic enrollment. Two months ago, the agency issued guidance for how State pharmacy assistance programs can automatically enroll their members who have incomes below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance benefit. Those enrollees continue to represent the bulk of those who have enrolled and they remain the model for how to ensure that low- income beneficiaries get the prescription drug assistance they need.

CMS can take this additional step, which I am calling for in this legislation, to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. I believe CMS has the authority to take the step on its own right now, but the legislation I have reintroduced today would clarify the law in this regard and would ensure that low- income seniors and people with disabilities actually receive this transitional assistance as promised by the administration and the Congress.

As the Medicare Rights Center has asked: Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the Government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?

That is exactly the right question to be asked. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are very sick, who have cognitive and mental illnesses and do not have access to or feel comfortable with the use of the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that could benefit them substantially this year and next year. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what choice automatic enrollment would take away at that point.

It is not enough to say, look, we believe these seniors have a choice of a great many discount cards and we do not want to prejudge that for them. The truth is, most of the people I am talking about are completely unaware that there is such a thing as a drug discount card or that there is such a thing as a $600 subsidy for which they could qualify. This lack of knowledge on their part is through no fault of their own and we should do all we can, and CMS should do all it can, to get them enrolled so they can benefit from this $600 subsidy. Either CMS or the States should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling these individuals in the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not the choice that they might have between one card or another but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they do today qualify for and that they should be receiving.

As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forgo needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the low-income beneficiaries would sign up for the $600 subsidy, by any measure signing up just 14 percent of these beneficiaries can only be viewed as a major failure. It has not been viewed as that so far either by the administration or by the Congress.

Once again, I call on the administration to take this important step on its own and enroll these individuals for this benefit. In light of the fact they have failed to do so, despite several calls from me and other Members of Congress for them to do so, I am reintroducing this bill, and I hope the Senate leadership will bring it to the floor for immediate action.

There is over $1 billion of prescription drug assistance for over 1 million of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am reintroducing the Medicare Assurance of Prescription Transition Assistance Act of 2004. It is my hope that this will be put on the Senate Calendar so it can be considered under rule XIV.

Let me give a little background about what this legislation is intended to correct.

As all of us know, this last year we passed a major revision, a major amendment to the Medicare Act. The Medicare Act was passed in 1965. In this last year, the prescription drug bill has been added to it. That was a controversial piece of legislation which I wound up opposing in its final form. I supported the version we passed through the Senate initially. I opposed the version that finally came from the conference and was sent to the President for signature.

But there was one part of that prescription drug legislation that contained a very real benefit for a lot of low-income Americans. That is the $600 subsidy that was made available this year and again next year for Medicare recipients with incomes in this category that allowed them to take advantage of the benefit.

The legislation I am introducing today will provide simply that CMS automatically enroll many of these low-income Medicare seniors and people with disabilities into this prescription drug card in order that they get the benefit of the discount card. Of course, that benefit is hard to quantify. They would get that benefit, but more importantly, they would get access to

this $600 subsidy this year and another $600 subsidy next year, which would go against the cost of prescription drugs they incur during those 2 years.

Underscoring the need for this legislation, yesterday Dr. Mark McClellan, the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, testified before the Senate Special Committee on Aging that only 1 million of the more than 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are eligible for the $600 subsidy under the Medicare prescription drug card are currently enrolled.

This chart makes that point very clearly. The title of this chart is ``Low Enrollment Plagues Prescription Drug Plan.'' This first bullet states that 7 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries are eligible for this $600 subsidy. The number of low-income beneficiaries that CMS projected would actually enroll would be 5 million. So 5 million of the 7 million were supposed to enroll. In fact, the number of low-income beneficiaries who have enrolled turns out to be 1 million.

So there are 6 million Americans eligible for the $600 transition assistance under the Medicare prescription drug bill who are not receiving any help. In other words, 14 percent of those who are eligible for this $600 subsidy are actually getting assistance at the present time. Unfortunately, many of those seniors who are eligible live in my home State of New Mexico, and I am very anxious that we provide this benefit to them since it is a part of the law.

The President and the leadership in the Senate have vowed to bottle up any legislation that would reopen the Medicare prescription drug bill at this time, or before the end of this Congress. Unfortunately, that would include bills such as the one I am reintroducing today, which is really intended to ensure that the people who are eligible for the limited benefit provided under this bill actually receive that benefit.

If we are serious about trying to provide assistance to our Nation's most vulnerable low-income seniors and people with disabilities, then we should undertake the rather straightforward but significant step that is called for in this legislation, and that is automatically enrolling those who are eligible for the $600 subsidy into the discount drug card program.

Considering that it is unclear whether the savings offered by the drug discount card itself will amount to much, and that is just hard to quantify, frankly, the main benefit is not the discount card itself; it is the $600 credit which is available to low-income individuals.

Specifically, the $600 is available to any individual whose income is less than $12,569 per year or any married couple whose income is less than $16,862 per year. For those Medicare savings program beneficiaries who get cost-sharing assistance through Medicaid because they have incomes below 135 percent of poverty but are not receiving prescription drug coverage, they clearly meet the income criteria under the act and their automatic enrollment is the only way to ensure they will receive the $600 subsidy that those of us in Congress intended they receive.

In fact, when the prescription drug bill was passed, the administration claimed that 65 percent of those eligible for the $600 transitional assistance would actually be enrolled.

According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, the agency expected 5 million people of the 7 million--again, as is stated on this chart--including 29,000 of the estimated 45,000 in my home State of New Mexico, would actually enroll. Under the CMS assumptions, those beneficiaries combined would save $5 billion nationally, or $35 million in my home State of New Mexico, over this 2- year period.

Much of that savings is not going to be realized by those seniors unless we pass the legislation I am introducing today.

Part of the explanation for the low enrollment is the poor advertising campaign that the General Accounting Office has criticized and with which we are generally familiar. This poor advertising campaign included running ads in Capitol Hill newspapers such as Roll Call and the Hill. Unfortunately, most of the low-income seniors in my State do not subscribe to either Roll Call or the Hill. In fact, they do not know those publications exist.

According to a national survey by the Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 percent of senior citizens are even aware that the low-income transitional assistance program was included in the prescription drug bill. So it is hard to believe that 65 percent of those who are eligible will enroll when less than one-fifth of them even know the program exists.

Fortunately, CMS has already laid the groundwork for this automatic enrollment. Two months ago, the agency issued guidance for how State pharmacy assistance programs can automatically enroll their members who have incomes below 135 percent of poverty in the low-income assistance benefit. Those enrollees continue to represent the bulk of those who have enrolled and they remain the model for how to ensure that low- income beneficiaries get the prescription drug assistance they need.

CMS can take this additional step, which I am calling for in this legislation, to automatically enroll MSP members who do not have prescription drug coverage. I believe CMS has the authority to take the step on its own right now, but the legislation I have reintroduced today would clarify the law in this regard and would ensure that low- income seniors and people with disabilities actually receive this transitional assistance as promised by the administration and the Congress.

As the Medicare Rights Center has asked: Given their definite eligibility and clear need for help to pay for their prescription drugs, why not save these people and the Government the hassle of application and automatically enroll them?

That is exactly the right question to be asked. There are a number of low-income seniors and people with disabilities who are very sick, who have cognitive and mental illnesses and do not have access to or feel comfortable with the use of the Internet. Many will wrongly slip through the cracks and fail to get the $600 subsidy that could benefit them substantially this year and next year. In such cases, if an individual has not enrolled for whatever reason, it begs the question as to what choice automatic enrollment would take away at that point.

It is not enough to say, look, we believe these seniors have a choice of a great many discount cards and we do not want to prejudge that for them. The truth is, most of the people I am talking about are completely unaware that there is such a thing as a drug discount card or that there is such a thing as a $600 subsidy for which they could qualify. This lack of knowledge on their part is through no fault of their own and we should do all we can, and CMS should do all it can, to get them enrolled so they can benefit from this $600 subsidy. Either CMS or the States should take the affirmative step of automatically enrolling these individuals in the program. If we fail to assist them in this manner, what is really lost is not the choice that they might have between one card or another but the $1,200 in real prescription drug assistance that they do today qualify for and that they should be receiving.

As a Kaiser Family Foundation study last year indicated, Medicare beneficiaries with no drug coverage were nearly three times more likely than people with drug coverage to forgo needed prescription drugs. While CMS has estimated that 65 percent of the low-income beneficiaries would sign up for the $600 subsidy, by any measure signing up just 14 percent of these beneficiaries can only be viewed as a major failure. It has not been viewed as that so far either by the administration or by the Congress.

Once again, I call on the administration to take this important step on its own and enroll these individuals for this benefit. In light of the fact they have failed to do so, despite several calls from me and other Members of Congress for them to do so, I am reintroducing this bill, and I hope the Senate leadership will bring it to the floor for immediate action.

There is over $1 billion of prescription drug assistance for over 1 million of our Nation's most vulnerable citizens at stake. It is time for the Senate to pass this bill.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am of the view that a basic precondition to the U.S. trade agenda operating on the right track is having a consistent and coherent policy foundation. I have always argued that expanded trade can be a powerful tool to promote economic growth and improved standards of living in the United States and around the world. It can help countries develop, ease poverty, raise standards of living, and eliminate instability. It can encourage the high-wage job growth and technological innovation in the United States. In general, I consider myself to be someone that supports trade. In fact, my record shows that I have.

But I also believe that trade policy must shape the rules by which trade and international economic policy is conducted to maximize its benefits and minimize its liabilities, both domestically and internationally. Trade liberalization is not inevitably better for the United States. But it can be better for the United States, and frequently is better for the United States, and we should pursue it under the right conditions.

Based on the results of U.S. trade policy, I am not sure we are doing that right now. In fact, I have to wonder if we are on the wrong track completely. Here is the bottom line:

Over two million U.S. manufacturing jobs lost; record and rising U.S. trade and budget deficits, so large that the IMF has warned that they could destabilize the global economy; moving from a trade surplus to a trade deficit in one of the few areas we still have a competitive advantage--high-technology products; major cuts by the administration in the education, workforce, and science and technology programs that ensure we have a competitive edge in these products in the future; major increases in outsourcing in the services sector, with no clear indication of whether this provides net benefits for the U.S. economy; continued major barriers to American products in foreign markets--both as a result of tariff and nontariff barriers; a distinct lack of effort on the part of the administration to pursue dispute settlement at the WTO for countries in direct violation of trade laws; a one-size-fits- all approach to U.S. trade policy, where little consideration is given to the actual ability of individual countries to implement agreements or whether the agreements will actually provide long-term benefits; a knee-jerk subordination of U.S. economic security to U.S. foreign policy concerns; insufficient consultation with Congress by the administration during the fast-track process; insufficient explanation by the administration of the potential impacts of trade agreements on our own economic system, including the environment, taxation, healthcare, and so on; and insufficient attention to the impact of trade agreements on American workers, in particular the provision of trade adjustment assistance so workers can increase their skill-set and sustain U.S. competitiveness.

I would argue what we are doing in U.S. trade policy at this point in time is following a policy where trade agreements are assumed to be good, with little regard for the actual implications of the agreement for our country's overall economic security. I would not suggest that economic considerations can be the only rationale for trade agreements, but certainly it must be the primary rationale.

In my State of New Mexico, I have seen directly the unintended but very negative consequences of trade agreements in areas typically not considered to be an important part of them--things like housing, health care, the environment, immigration, and so on. These issues are what many people call the ``externalities'' of trade. We have not paid close enough attention to these issues in trade agreements, but from where I sit we cannot afford to do

this any longer. Small provisions in trade agreements have had substantial unanticipated consequences over time. Trade agreements must look at the overall implications of trade on countries, not just trade flows.

As an example, the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement contains language that could have a potentially negative impact on the U.S. health care industry. Although the Finance Committee leadership received assurances from the Bush administration that this language is consistent with our normal obligations under the Government Procurement Agreement, I believe the language is ambiguous at best.

To this end, at yesterday's Finance Committee executive session I requested a letter from the Department of Health and Human Services stating specifically that this program would not negatively impact our current efforts to obtain lower cost prescription drugs for Americans. I received the letter this morning, and I will include it for the Record.. I have received assurances from the Secretary that the provisions under Annex 2-C of the agreement related to pharmaceuticals do not require changes in any U.S. Government health care programs.

However, I requested assurances from the Secretary that Chapter 15.11 related to Domestic Review of Supplier Challenges do not require changes in any U.S. Government health care programs, nor does the Secretary intend to use the agreement--Annex 2-C or Chapter 15--to change any U.S. Government health care programs. I did not receive this assurance, but I want to make it clear that I have an expectation to do so. If the administration does not intend to use this free trade agreement, there is no real reason that they shouldn't state so explicitly. I request again at this time that they do so, and I believe that request is compatible with the statements made by my colleagues on the floor this afternoon.

There is another problem with this agreement. I am extremely disappointed that the Conrad amendment related to beef safeguards that was adopted during the markup in the Finance Committee was not included in the final language. I feel very strongly that the vote was indicative of the will of the Finance Committee on the FTA and that the revised version would have offered additional protections for American ranchers and should have been included. The fact it was not included in the final language is a violation of the spirit of the Trade Promotion Authority, or fast-track, legislation passed in 2002. Combined with the lack of attention on the pharmaceutical issue, I think this is a mistake on the part of the administration in that it makes the formation of bipartisan consensus on trade policy problematic in the future.

These specific criticisms aside, after careful consideration, I felt the benefits of this agreement outweighed its liabilities. It is my view that the FTA gives a strong boost for trade and investment between United States and Australia that will ultimately benefit the economic security interests of our country. The FTA eliminates 99 percent of Australia's manufacturing tariffs immediately, grants incremental tariff-free access to Australia's market for U.S. farmers and ranchers, provides enhanced preferential access for U.S. telecommunications and service companies, and removes existing foreign investment screening procedures that have been a market barrier for U.S. firms. Significantly, labor and environment standards in Australia are compatible with the International Labor Organization and the laws we have in the United States. I believe there is an economic complementarity between the United States and Australia that is unique, and it should be encouraged.

So while I have some concerns, I will support the United States- Australia Free Trade Agreement. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the future to ensure that the Administration and the Congress work together to establish a broad bipartisan effort to ensure we work together more effectively in the future. The goal is to bring about expanded international trade so we have economic growth and jobs for the American people. That is the bottom line.

I ask unanimous consent to print the letter to which I referred in the Record.

Mr. President, I have come to this floor several times in the last few months to discuss our country's future competitiveness in the global marketplace, which I consider to be a very serious subject. As a first step in tackling the challenges we are now facing, yesterday I introduced three bills that I feel will move us in the right direction. They will ensure a strong workforce that can handle the ever-changing world around it, and create more high tech job opportunities for this workforce by encouraging the development of science parks.

We have, as a nation, a significant negative trend to reverse. The United

States currently ranks fifteenth in the percentage of 18-to-24-year- olds who earn science and engineering degrees in their respective countries. This places us behind Taiwan and South Korea, Ireland and Italy among others. Less than thirty years ago, in 1975, the United States ranked third in the world in this respect. According to a new National Science Foundation report entitled ``An Emerging and Critical Problem of the Science and Engineering Labor Force'', the average age of the science and engineering workforce is rising, and the children of the baby boom generation are not choosing these careers in the same numbers as their parents. The number of science and engineering doctoral degrees awarded to U.S. citizens dropped by 7 percent from 1998 to 2001, while the number of jobs requiring science and engineering skills in the U.S. labor force is growing almost 5 percent per year. In a recent survey, the National Association of Manufacturers found that more than 80 percent of manufacturers report a shortage of qualified job candidates. Equally troubling, it is estimated that as many as 3.3 million jobs may be sent overseas in the next 15 years, causing American workers to lose $136 billion in wages.

A recent trip to Taiwan brought to my attention some of these emerging opportunities in other countries, and specifically the major benefits of a science park. Initially developed by the Taiwanese government in the early 1980s, the Hsinchu Science Park meets many of the needs of growing high tech companies, which include access to a trained work force, financing, secondary supply chain companies, and quality of life services such as schools, roads and parks. Two companies spun out from this park now control 40 percent of the world's market for chip fabrication. And China is now adopting a similar model.

What we need to take from countries like Taiwan is the role the government has to foster continued growth in key industries by supporting the necessary infrastructure, such as the science parks. It should also be pointed out that that support is not forever. While Taiwan had a very active role in chip R&D in the 70's and 80's, that is not true today. Industry, not the government, funds over 94 percent of chip R&D.

In my own State of New Mexico, the 6-year-old Sandia Science and Technology Park has already demonstrated some of the benefits of this unique model. The Sandia park now has 19 entities employing almost 1,000 people. The average annual salary is $55,000--well above the Albuquerque average. Since the Park's inception, more than $17 million in cooperative research and development agreements and licensing agreements have been made between Sandia National Laboratory and park tenants. In addition, Sandia has awarded more than $50 million in procurement contracts to park tenants. Both Sandia National Laboratory and the companies in the park have benefited immensely from the advantages of this business environment.

With the new challenges we are facing as a competitor in the international marketplace, here are four things we can do to improve our Nation's position.

First, we have to improve our high tech workforce. We need to increase the numbers of workers educated for employment in high technology industries, align the technical and vocational programs of educational institutions with the workforce needs of high growth industries, offer individuals expanded opportunities for rapid training and re-training needed to keep and change jobs in a volatile economy, and provide U.S. companies with adequate numbers of skilled technical workers. This is why I am introducing the Workforce Investment in Next Generation Technologies--WING--Act today.

Drawing from the already very successful Advanced Technology Education Program at the National Science Foundation, the legislation will establish a consultation partnership between the National Science Foundation, the Department of Labor, and the Department of Education that creates flexible high-tech, high-wage career ladders. It would do this by funding cooperative partnerships between one-stop centers, business, community colleges, universities, and vocational programs at the local and regional level. These would be directed toward creating technology-based certification programs that would solidify common skill standards for industry. Schools would create a curriculum based on current industry needs, and individuals who leave the program would have a skill-set recognized by industry. Significantly, they could be used anywhere across the country.

Over time, because individuals would be able to incrementally increase their skill set through additional training, they would be able to pursue higher level degrees in science and technology and obtain progressively higher-wage employment. Furthermore, by linking the public and private sector in a collaborative effort for high- technology workforce training, it will encourage the sharing of information and ideas, increase cooperation between entities frequently having a reputation for not working together, and enhance cluster- driven economic growth across the country. In my state of New Mexico, for example, you could easily envision a cluster being developed around key critical technologies for the future such as high temperature superconductors or next-generation lighting.

Second, we need to ensure that individuals typically trapped in low- wage jobs have a tangible chance to step onto career ladders to something better. To this end I previously introduced the Limited English Proficiency and Integrated Workforce Training Act, S. 1690. This legislation establishes a program under the Workforce Investment Act administered jointly by Departments of Labor and Education focused on preparing and placing individuals with limited English proficiency in growing industries with tangible high wage career paths. It is also designed to bypass lengthy prerequisites to entry into the workforce and allow individuals with limited proficiency to integrate occupational and English language training. Significantly, it recognizes that immigrants constitute close to 50 percent of the growth in the civilian workforce in the last decade and that these individuals can make a significant contribution to U.S. economic competitiveness.

In combination, these bills will bring together workforce training and economic development to enhance opportunities for growth in communities around the country. Similar language was already accepted in the Workforce Investment Act legislation that passed the Senate.

Focusing on high-school to postsecondary education, an important third component to meeting the demands of a competitive, 21st century workforce is the bill I am introducing today, the Preparing Students for a High-Tech World Act.

Strong career and technical education programs are vital to addressing our shortage of highly-skilled workers and to preserving these jobs for Americans. These programs offer effective and proven links to positive educational and employment outcomes for students, including increased school attendance, reduced high school dropout rates, higher grades, increased entry into postsecondary education, and greater access to high-tech careers.

In my home State of New Mexico, we have benefited greatly from federal support for career and technical education programs, which involve over 3,000 secondary and postsecondary teachers. These programs have a distinguished record of preparing young people and adults for further education and careers. For instance, in Gadsden, we have an innovative program in a rural border area that has been struggling to keep its jobs and its industry alive. The Gadsden program has directly linked the needs of area employers to the high school and postsecondary curriculum. The employers get a customized workforce, and have more incentive to stay and grow their business in the region. The students get preferred hiring status, as well as opportunities to enhance their skills and obtain certificates as they work.

We also have an outstanding career and technical education program in Rio Rancho that was established through a unique community-business partnership with Intel Corporation. Rio Rancho High School offers a rigorous, integrated career and technical education program that was featured in Time magazine as one of the 10 most innovative career and technical schools in the nation.

The Preparing Students for a High-Tech World Act will extend the opportunity to benefit from exemplary programs like Rio Rancho to our nation's students by increasing the academic rigor and integration of career and technical education programs; developing pathways to postsecondary education and high-skill, high-wage careers; forging alliances among secondary schools, postsecondary institutions, and business and industry designed to address local and regional workforce needs; ensuring that teachers have the knowledge and skills to teach effectively in career and technical education programs; and encouraging the establishment of small, personalized, career-themed learning communities.

These three bills will ensure that we develop the skilled workforce that is essential to building a strong and dynamic economy and to maintaining our country's ability to compete in a global marketplace. This legislation would have substantial spill-over benefits for the communities that adopted these strategies. It would improve science and technology education at the schools in the area. It would increase the employment opportunities for the students that participated in these programs. It would establish more cooperative linkages between the business, schools, and the one-stop shops, and it would enhance economic development in the region.

Along with developing a better trained workforce, we must also create the jobs for them to fill. As I mentioned earlier, Taiwan and Sandia have done an excellent job in demonstrating the competitive advantages of a science park. Given that they act as a critical element in diffusing technology into our national industries, I think that a fourth element of our response to new S&T challenges would be for the Federal government to take a stronger and more coherent role in supporting such parks. Some science parks are locally supported by their states, while others may apply for grants from the Economic Development Administration within the Department of Commerce. These existing sources of support are helpful but it appears to me that it would make good sense to develop a more focused grant program to help jump-start the development of science parks, which is why I have introduced the Science Park Administration Act of 2004. If passed, the federal funds in this bill would be cost matched by States. A loan program to assist in land acquisition and infrastructure development for these parks would be established. And various tax incentives would be provided, including credits for employees trained locally, and adjustment of depreciation schedules for high-end equipment to reflect actual product life-cycles.

I hope that I have provided some positive steps we can take to face the increasingly competitive world we live in. Congress and the administration need to find the will and the resolve to meet these challenges head-on. I look forward to working with my colleagues in doing so, and in helping to ensure the competitive strength of our Nation.

Mr. President, I rise today to address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The facts in this case are, in my view, clear. Sudanese refugees have been flooding into Chad as a result of the coordinated policies of local militias and the Government of Sudan. The conditions that have forced the refugees to flee their home and their country are beyond horrific, including systematic murder, rape, torture, and abduction. Although it is impossible to know the exact figures, up to 30,000 individuals have been killed and over a million have been displaced. The United States, the United Nations, and many international organizations are predicting that over a million will die with the change of seasons in the region, the lack of food and water, and the onset of disease.

At a minimum, these atrocities amount to ethnic cleansing on the part of the local militias and the Sudanese Government. At worst, they constitute genocide. In either case, the atrocities should have been stopped much earlier. Furthermore, they can and should be stopped now.

Within the last few weeks, U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan have visited the region. I consider this an extremely belated effort on the part of the United States and the United Nations to address a series of problems that were both predictable and preventable. Unfortunately, the administration's attention and resources are so focused elsewhere that it lost sight of a humanitarian crisis of catastrophic proportions. Sadly, Sudan is where it is today because no one at a high level felt the region and its people mattered enough to pay attention and do something. Sadly, the administration only paid attention when Congress wrote letters in June--letters that I signed--requesting that they do so.

These letters--one to President Bush and one to Secretary-General Annan--requested that very specific steps be undertaken to stop the current crisis, in particular committing additional human and financial resources to the region, identifying the individuals and governments responsible for the actions, requiring a U.N. Security Council resolution that condemns the atrocities that have occurred, and delineating a viable multilateral effort to bring them to an end.

Let me emphasize that at present there are 260 individuals in Sudan attempting to monitor the crisis, this in a region the size of the State of Texas. The brutality continues unabated because the collective will to stop it has been nonexistent. It is time for President Bush to say clearly what his intentions are. It is time to offer a clear strategy. It is time for him to make this a priority. It is time to organize international action to bring the crisis to an end.

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

Mr. President, I came to the floor intending to talk about an amendment I had prepared to offer to the class action legislation, the underlying class action legislation. I think instead of getting into a discussion of that amendment, let me express my disappointment that we are not doing anything this week here in the Senate.

I was asked last week, as I am sure all of us were by our constituents, what are you doing in the Senate? What is

Congress doing these days? I tried to answer honestly and said: Nothing. We are treading water in the Senate. We are not doing anything.

I checked with the Parliamentarian about the procedural status we are in in the Senate this morning. I am informed this is the status: We have S. 2062, which is this bill to reform class action procedures. There is an amendment offered to that by Senator Frist, a perfecting amendment. There is a second-degree perfecting amendment offered to that. There is a motion to commit that has been made by Senator Frist. There is a Frist perfecting amendment to the motion to commit, and there is a Frist second-degree perfecting amendment to the first-degree perfecting amendment to the motion to commit. So the obvious question I put to the Parliamentarian is, what is there that is in order for us to offer at this time for the Senate to consider? The answer is, nothing. Nothing is in order. The tree is full, as the parliamentary expression goes, and nothing can be offered.

There is also a cloture motion that has been filed on the underlying measure. That would be a motion that will come to a vote presumably tomorrow to bring the debate on the underlying bill to a close. Of course, that motion will come up without Senators having been able to offer amendments. I would doubt seriously that that cloture motion would prevail, but that would be a surmise. I don't know that that is the case.

All of this procedural mumbo jumbo I am reciting in order to make the point that there is no effort I am aware of to move ahead with a lot of the important items that need to be dealt with in the Senate. The Senator from California raised a couple of those items that relate to homeland security. There are many others also we could get unanimous consent to move ahead on and that would be good policy initiatives that would benefit our country. I am frustrated--as I am sure many Senators are--that we are in this circumstance. I am frustrated this week is essentially lost to any productive activity.

Next week I am informed we will be debating a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. I concur with the comments of the Senator from Nevada that there is no chance the necessary two-thirds vote of the Senate is going to be there to pass that constitutional amendment. The Founding Fathers had great wisdom in saying, when you are amending the Constitution, you can't just do it with a majority vote. You have to have a two-thirds vote. I can say with very little fear of contradiction, there are not two-thirds of all Senators who favor going ahead and passing a constitutional amendment at this time. So again, that will be another wasted week next week.

We have one more week then, and then we are in recess for 6 weeks. Then we come back in the second week in September and presumably have a few weeks of work there before we adjourn. I regret we are not able to do more. I regret our procedural circumstance we find ourselves in prevents me from offering the amendment I had intended to offer. But I will look forward to an opportunity to offer that amendment, if and when we get to a point where amendments are in order on this pending legislation.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Senator Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico.

Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides.

The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. Its strategic location between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.

The Glorieta Unit of the Park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This Unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today, I am introducing along with Senator Domenici the ``Pecos National Historical Park Land Exchange Act of 2004''. This bill will authorize a land exchange between the Federal Government and a private landowner that will benefit the Pecos National Historical Park in my State of New Mexico.

Specifically, the bill will enable the Park Service to acquire a private inholding within the Park's boundaries in exchange for the transfer of a nearby tract of National Forest System land. The National Forest parcel has been identified as available for exchange in the Santa Fe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and is surrounded by private lands on three sides.

The Pecos National Historical Park possesses exceptional historic and archaeological resources. Its strategic location between the Great Plains and the Rio Grande Valley has made it the focus of the region's 10,000 years of human history. The Park preserves the ruins of the great Pecos pueblo, which was a major trade center, and the ruins of two Spanish colonial missions dating from the 17th and 18th centuries.

The Glorieta Unit of the Park protects key sites associated with the 1862 Civil War Battle of Glorieta Pass, a significant event that ended the Confederate attempt to expand the war into the West. This Unit will directly benefit from the land exchange.

I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill I have introduced today be printed in the Record.

I would like to engage the ranking member, Senator Inouye, in a colloquy regarding the Measurement and Signatures Intelligence Research Program. Is the Senator aware of this program and how critical it is to the development of our next generation of MASINT sensors?

Would the Senator also agree that the MASINT Research Program has been a great success in bringing together some of the best thinking on this issue in Government, the private sector and our Nation's leading colleges and universities?

Finally, wouldn't you agree that the valuable work that the Measurement and Signatures Intelligence Research Program has done should be continued in Fiscal Year 2005 by retaining the funding level included in the House of Representatives' Defense Appropriations bill?