Jeff Bingaman

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I will defer to the Senator from Alaska.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay a special tribute to one of the true educational leaders of our time, Dr. Barbara Lazarus, whose contribution to expanding educational access for women and people of color has been immeasurable. It is not often that a single individual envisions how the world can be more just, has the talent to implement that vision, and conveys the passion that attracts others to the cause. Dr. Lazarus embodied all of these attributes and more, working tirelessly for inclusion and understanding. Dr. Lazarus, an educational anthropologist, served as the associate provost for academic affairs at Carnegie Mellon University until her untimely death this past July. While at Carnegie Mellon, she became a nationally recognized leader in promoting women in science and engineering, and she won Carnegie Mellon's Doherty Prize, the university's highest honor for educational contributions. Dr. Lazarus touched the lives of hundreds of students and staff through her efforts to give women and minorities increased access to nontraditional occupations. Her commitment to promoting women and minorities in science and engineering has had an important impact throughout American higher education, as programs she created to overcome barriers have been replicated across the country. Also concerned with reaching children, especially girls, she invented ``Explanatoids,'' short lessons explaining the science behind everyday phenomena, from roller coasters to curve balls. This project, too, is being replicated at playgrounds and other institutions, including the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum. Prior to joining Carnegie Mellon, Dr. Lazarus was the director of the Center for Women's Careers at Wellesley College where her groundbreaking work focused on the role of professional women in a global, multicultural society. She became the codirector and the only non-Asian member of the Asian Women's Institute Commission on Women and Work. In that capacity, she organized meetings in several Asian countries that brought together women scholars, government leaders, and activists to address the challenge of moving Asian women from traditional to nontraditional roles, particularly in the workplace. Throughout her career, Dr. Lazarus wrote books, articles, and gave hundreds of talks to share her ideas and inspire others in this work. She will be missed by her family, as well as the hundreds of friends, faculty, and students who were inspired by her counsel. And she will be missed by all of us for her significant contributions addressing important issues of our time, and general improvement of our human condition.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I would like to speak for a few minutes on the pending reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. A conference report on HR 2115 was filed back in July, and since then there has been no further action in either house of Congress. As I see it, the problem with the bill is that the conferees on the part of the majority chose to conduct a back-room conference without the participation of the minority. This was a flawed process, and the result is a conference report that can't pass either the House or the Senate. The House is now poised to recommit the bill to the conference. Meanwhile, Congress had to pass a short-term extension of FAA's administration just to keep the agency in operation. I think by now all Senators are aware of the many concerns that have been raised over the FAA conference report. On a number of key measures, the conferees ignored the will of the majority in the House and the Senate and arbitrarily inserted provisions that both houses had voted to oppose. I believe adding such extraneous and objectionable provisions is an egregious violation of the conference process. All Senators should be offended by what the conferees did in this case. Senator Reid spoke Tuesday about the conferees' rejection of House- and Senate-passed provisions regarding privatization of federal air traffic controllers. I was pleased to support Senator Lautenberg's bipartisan amendment on this issue, which passed the Senate 56 to 41. I want to reinforce what my colleague Senator Reid said yesterday about the air traffic control system. The privatization issue must be dealt with fairly, or the bill will not pass the Senate. Another particularly egregious violation of the conference process was a provision the conferees added affecting the Essential Air Service program, which helps small, rural communities maintain their vital commercial air service. In my State, five communities participate in EAS: Alamogordo, Carlsbad, Clovis, Hobbs, and Silver City. For these communities, commercial air service provides a critical link to the national and international transportation network that would not otherwise exist. The FAA reauthorization bill originally reported by the Senate Commerce Committee would have required EAS communities for the first time to pay to maintain their commercial air. In my view, this ill- timed proposal would have jeopardized existing commercial air service in many rural areas. Across America, our small communities are facing depressed economies and declining tax revenues and are simply not in a position to pay for their commercial air service. To help preserve essential air service, Senator Inhofe and I offered an amendment with 13 cosponsors that struck out the mandatory cost- sharing language. Our bipartisan amendment was adopted on a voice vote. In parallel, Representatives McHugh, Peterson of Pennsylvania, and Shuster offered an amendment that struck out similar mandatory cost- sharing language in the House's bill. As a followup to our amendment, Senator Snowe and I, along with Senators Nelson of Nebraska, Bunning, Schumer, Brownback, Lincoln, Jeffords, Clinton, Inhofe, Leahy, Pryor, Collins, Hagel, Grassley, and Harkin, sent a bipartisan letter to the chairman and ranking member of the Commerce Committee reinforcing our strong opposition to mandatory cost-sharing for EAS communities. Most students of Government would tell you that when a majority of both houses of Congress have voted against a particular measure, the conferees couldn't arbitrarily put it back in. Well, they did. Section 408 of the conference report basically restores the very cost-sharing language both Houses one month before had voted to reject. This week, with the FAA conference report soon going to be recommitted to the conference, 16 Senators wrote to the conferees expressing grave concern over the restoration of the mandatory cost- sharing language and urging them to drop this harmful provision before the conference report is brought back to the full House and Senate. Thirty-five members of the House signed a similar bipartisan letter. I want to pass an FAA reauthorization bill. The FAA plays an important role in assuring the safety of the traveling public. At the same time, New Mexico's 51 airports are in desperate need of the Federal funding provided under the FAA's Airport Improvement Program. I hope all Senators are aware that AIP was not extended under the first continuing resolution, and all new airport construction projects are on hold pending the reauthorization. With the serious unemployment situation the Nation faces, this is no time to shut down the jobs these vital airport construction projects produce. I've come to the floor today to urge the conferees to work together in a bipartisan manner to produce a conference report that all Senators can support. Inserting controversial measures in conference that are opposed by both houses has left us with an FAA conference report that is essentially dead. In my opinion, imposing mandatory cost sharing for EAS communities, which a majority in both houses rejected, will only delay further the FAA reauthorization bill. I do believe that by returning the FAA bill to conference we can begin to work in a bipartisan manner to restore integrity to the conference process that all Senators should demand. When this bill goes back to conference, I urge the FAA conferees to do the right thing for rural communities across America by preserving the Essential Air Service Program. I ask unanimous consent to print the above-referenced letters in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Madam President, I rise today to explain my support for Senator Byrd's amendment No. 1794 to S. 1689. While I support funding the reconstruction of Iraq, I believe in the necessity to consider these two very important issues funding for Iraqi security and Iraqi reconstruction separately. The purpose of the Byrd amendment was to separate the reconstruction portion from the security portion of S. 1689. Had Senator Byrd's amendment passed we would have been able to take immediate action on the security portion of S. 1689 and passed that portion before we left town this week. We could have then, upon our return, looked more closely at the President's request for reconstruction funding and taken the time to give thorough scrutiny to the administration's request and better examine the ways in which we are prioritizing the spending requests of this bill.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes the National Park Service, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, to undertake a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating various Manhattan Project sites and their facilities as a National Historical Park. Specifically, the study will evaluate the historic significance of the Manhattan Project facilities of Los Alamos and the Trinity Site in the State of New Mexico, of the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, and of Oak Ridge in the State of Tennessee. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues from the States of Washington, Senators Cantwell and Murray, are cosponsoring this bill. The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the World--would be difficult to overstate. The project was initiated as a desperate effort in the middle of World War II to beat Nazi Germany to the construction of the first nuclear bomb. The effort was of a magnitude and intensity not seen before or since: in a mere three years, 130,000 men and women went to work on a $2.2 billion mission that furiously pushed science, technology, engineering, and society into a new age. The magnitude of the effort is easily matched by its legacy. This legacy includes an ending to the Second World War, as well as the foundation for nuclear medicine and great advances in physics, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A number of scholars have argued that it also includes a dramatic change to a sustained era of relative world peace. But this legacy also includes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and the sacrifices of the homesteaders that were forced off of the sites to make way for the project, its thousands of workers and their families, and the uranium miners, ``down-winders'', and others. This legacy has been the subject of hot debate for decades, and this debate continues today--as it must. There are historic facilities at the four Manhattan Project sites that are absolutely essential resources for informing this important debate, and there should be no question that they are of great national and international significance. Pulitzer Prize-winning Manhattan Project author Richard Rhodes has said that ``the discovery of how to release nuclear energy was arguably the most important human discovery since fire--reason enough to preserve its remarkable history.'' But while the enormous significance of the Manhattan Project makes our obligation to preserve and interpret this history abundantly clear, it makes it equally challenging. The greatest challenge has been--and will continue to be--interpreting this history in a sensitive and balanced way. This Nation is blessed with historic assets that praise the best of humanity and some that mourn the worst, some that grace us with glory and some that humble us with anguish, some that impress us with brilliance and some that embarrass us with senselessness, some that manifest beginnings and some that mark ends, some that inspire us with awe and some that fascinate us with curiosities, and some that grip us with the fear of destruction and some that give us the hope of creation. But I don't know of any others that challenge us with legitimate passions for all of these. Preserving and interpreting this history also includes the challenge of respecting the ongoing missions and responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense at the Manhattan Project sites. Access to some of the historic facilities must be restricted--to some prohibited--and other precautions also may be necessary. The Departments of Energy and Defense have begun to take on these challenges, and they deserve much credit for doing so. The Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos is a good example, as are the biannual tours of the Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range. They have recognized that preserving this history offers great opportunities not only for the public, but for their employees. Employees who better appreciate this history will be more likely to appreciate their careers, and they certainly will appreciate the boost interested tourists give to their local economies. This bill asks the question whether we will do better to preserve and interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National Historical Park. It is appropriate that our Nation's leader in historic preservation and interpretation--the National Park Service--lead the effort to answer this question. In doing so, they will consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, as well as State, tribal, and local officials, and representatives of interested organizations and members of the public. The Park Service's expertise, experience, and enthusiasm is critical to the endeavor. In asking this question we are neither celebrating the Manhattan Project nor lamenting it. But we are recognizing our responsibility to society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce the Manhattan Project National Historical Park Study Act. This bill authorizes the National Park Service, in coordination with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, to undertake a special resource study to assess the national significance, suitability, and feasibility of designating various Manhattan Project sites and their facilities as a National Historical Park. Specifically, the study will evaluate the historic significance of the Manhattan Project facilities of Los Alamos and the Trinity Site in the State of New Mexico, of the Hanford Site in the State of Washington, and of Oak Ridge in the State of Tennessee. I am pleased that my distinguished colleagues from the States of Washington, Senators Cantwell and Murray, are cosponsoring this bill. The significance of the Manhattan Project to this Nation--and indeed the World--would be difficult to overstate. The project was initiated as a desperate effort in the middle of World War II to beat Nazi Germany to the construction of the first nuclear bomb. The effort was of a magnitude and intensity not seen before or since: in a mere three years, 130,000 men and women went to work on a $2.2 billion mission that furiously pushed science, technology, engineering, and society into a new age. The magnitude of the effort is easily matched by its legacy. This legacy includes an ending to the Second World War, as well as the foundation for nuclear medicine and great advances in physics, mathematics, engineering, and technology. A number of scholars have argued that it also includes a dramatic change to a sustained era of relative world peace. But this legacy also includes the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese, and the sacrifices of the homesteaders that were forced off of the sites to make way for the project, its thousands of workers and their families, and the uranium miners, ``down-winders'', and others. This legacy has been the subject of hot debate for decades, and this debate continues today--as it must. There are historic facilities at the four Manhattan Project sites that are absolutely essential resources for informing this important debate, and there should be no question that they are of great national and international significance. Pulitzer Prize-winning Manhattan Project author Richard Rhodes has said that ``the discovery of how to release nuclear energy was arguably the most important human discovery since fire--reason enough to preserve its remarkable history.'' But while the enormous significance of the Manhattan Project makes our obligation to preserve and interpret this history abundantly clear, it makes it equally challenging. The greatest challenge has been--and will continue to be--interpreting this history in a sensitive and balanced way. This Nation is blessed with historic assets that praise the best of humanity and some that mourn the worst, some that grace us with glory and some that humble us with anguish, some that impress us with brilliance and some that embarrass us with senselessness, some that manifest beginnings and some that mark ends, some that inspire us with awe and some that fascinate us with curiosities, and some that grip us with the fear of destruction and some that give us the hope of creation. But I don't know of any others that challenge us with legitimate passions for all of these. Preserving and interpreting this history also includes the challenge of respecting the ongoing missions and responsibilities of the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense at the Manhattan Project sites. Access to some of the historic facilities must be restricted--to some prohibited--and other precautions also may be necessary. The Departments of Energy and Defense have begun to take on these challenges, and they deserve much credit for doing so. The Bradbury Museum in Los Alamos is a good example, as are the biannual tours of the Trinity Site on White Sands Missile Range. They have recognized that preserving this history offers great opportunities not only for the public, but for their employees. Employees who better appreciate this history will be more likely to appreciate their careers, and they certainly will appreciate the boost interested tourists give to their local economies. This bill asks the question whether we will do better to preserve and interpret the important history of the Manhattan Project by unifying and promoting the various efforts at these sites as a National Historical Park. It is appropriate that our Nation's leader in historic preservation and interpretation--the National Park Service--lead the effort to answer this question. In doing so, they will consult with the Secretaries of Energy and Defense, as well as State, tribal, and local officials, and representatives of interested organizations and members of the public. The Park Service's expertise, experience, and enthusiasm is critical to the endeavor. In asking this question we are neither celebrating the Manhattan Project nor lamenting it. But we are recognizing our responsibility to society to ensure it is neither forgotten nor misunderstood. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Lugar, Lieberman and Bayh to offer legislation to honor our servicemen and women in Iraq, who serve far from home, and far from family and friends. They left the freedom and security of home to provide freedom and security to those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been great, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home, and over 1,500 will return wounded. Today, over 130,000 troops remain in the region. They remain to ensure that those who paid the ultimate sacrifice did not die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation of stability and freedom. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military, occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave young men and women will not be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. I believe that this is a mistake, and that our military deserves better. Along with my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman, I propose to correct this mistake by offering legislation authorizing the Iraqi Lieberation Medal in lieu of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from active duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and they continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives. The President agrees with our view of the exemplary service of these young men and women. On the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proclaimed: ``In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our Nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.'' I was extremely disappointed when I learned that those serving in Iraq would not be specifically recognized for their efforts. There will be no Iraqi campaign medal. Instead, the Department of Defense will award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary. I think this is a grave mistake. During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Liberation of Kuwait medal. For service in Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal, and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. Many within the military share this view; according to the Army Times: ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat. Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. `They show what you've done and how serious you are,' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. `If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time . . .'.'' My fellow distinguished colleagues, it is time. We must recognize the sacrifice and courage of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, New Mexico, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated. We have also asked much from our reserve and National Guard forces. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active duty. As recently as this weekend an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq. My colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in lieu of the GWOT medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq, one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, the Iraqi Liberation Medal. What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: The Congressional Medal of Honor; the Air Force Cross; the Navy Cross; the Army's Distinctive Service Cross; the Silver Star; and the Distinguished Flying Cross. We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes: Spanish War Service Medal; Army Occupation of Germany Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Berlin Airlift Medal; Korean Service Medal; and Prisoner of War Medal. And the list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs everyday in Iraq. It is time to do our job and honor them with a medal that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraqi Liberation Medal. I ask unanimous consent that an Air Force Times article also be printed in the Congressional Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleagues, Senators Lugar, Lieberman and Bayh to offer legislation to honor our servicemen and women in Iraq, who serve far from home, and far from family and friends. They left the freedom and security of home to provide freedom and security to those who have not known it for many years. The human cost has been great, over 300 American fighting men and women will never come home, and over 1,500 will return wounded. Today, over 130,000 troops remain in the region. They remain to ensure that those who paid the ultimate sacrifice did not die in vain. They are also there to build a new Iraqi nation of stability and freedom. My fellow Senators, the liberation of Iraq is turning out to be the most significant military, occupation and reconstruction effort since the end of World War II. Despite their sacrifice and courage, these brave young men and women will not be specifically recognized for their service in Iraq. Instead, the Department of Defense has decided to award them the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. I believe that this is a mistake, and that our military deserves better. Along with my colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Bayh and Senator Lieberman, I propose to correct this mistake by offering legislation authorizing the Iraqi Lieberation Medal in lieu of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal. While some of us in this body have not shared the administration's view on this war, we are united when it comes to supporting our troops. These young men and women from active duty, National Guard, and Reserves are all volunteers and exemplify the very essence of what it means to be a patriot. They continue to serve even though they do not know when they will return home to family and friends. They continue to serve despite the tremendous hardships they face and they continue to serve despite the constant threat to their lives. The President agrees with our view of the exemplary service of these young men and women. On the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, President Bush proclaimed: ``In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world. Our Nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.'' I was extremely disappointed when I learned that those serving in Iraq would not be specifically recognized for their efforts. There will be no Iraqi campaign medal. Instead, the Department of Defense will award them a Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary. I think this is a grave mistake. During Operation Desert Storm, service members received three separate military decorations for their service: the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal, and the Liberation of Kuwait medal. For service in Kosovo, our service men and women received the NATO Service Medal, and the Kosovo Campaign Medal. Many within the military share this view; according to the Army Times: ``Campaign medals help establish an immediate rapport with individuals checking into a unit.'' An expeditionary medal like the GWOT does not necessarily denote combat. A campaign medal is designed to recognize military personnel who have risked their lives in combat. Campaign medals matter. ``When a Marine shows up at a new duty station, commanders look first at his decorations and his physical fitness score--the first to see where he's been, the second to see if he can hang. `They show what you've done and how serious you are,' said Gunnery Sgt. James Cuneo. `If you're a good Marine, people are going to award you when it comes time . . .'.'' My fellow distinguished colleagues, it is time. We must recognize the sacrifice and courage of our young men and women who liberated Iraq, including great Americans like Army Specialist Joseph Hudson from Alamogordo, New Mexico, who was held as a prisoner of war. The Nation was captivated as we watched Specialist Hudson being interrogated by the enemy. Asked to divulge his military occupation, Specialist Hudson stared defiantly into the camera and said, ``I follow orders.'' Those of us with sons and daughters were united in worry with Specialist Hudson's family. The entire Nation rejoiced when he was liberated. We have also asked much from our reserve and National Guard forces. The reconstruction of Iraq would not be possible without the commitment and sacrifice of the 170,000 Guard and Reservists currently on active duty. As recently as this weekend an additional 10,000 troops from Washington State and North Carolina were activated for service in Iraq. My colleagues, Senator Lugar, Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, and I are committed to honoring our over 200,000 heroes who liberated Iraq. We believe that current administration policy does a disservice to our fighting men and women. Therefore we propose, in lieu of the GWOT medal, a new decoration that characterizes the real mission in Iraq, one that is distinctive and honors their sacrifice, the Iraqi Liberation Medal. What we do today is not without precedent; Congress has been responsible for recognizing the sacrifice and courage of our military forces throughout history. Congress has had a significant and historically central role in authorizing military decorations. Our Nation's highest military decorations were authorized by Congress, including: The Congressional Medal of Honor; the Air Force Cross; the Navy Cross; the Army's Distinctive Service Cross; the Silver Star; and the Distinguished Flying Cross. We have also authorized campaign and liberation medals similar to what we hope to accomplish with this legislation. A partial list includes: Spanish War Service Medal; Army Occupation of Germany Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Berlin Airlift Medal; Korean Service Medal; and Prisoner of War Medal. And the list goes on and on. The great men and women of our military forces are doing their jobs everyday in Iraq. It is time to do our job and honor them with a medal that truly stands for their heroic service, the Iraqi Liberation Medal. I ask unanimous consent that an Air Force Times article also be printed in the Congressional Record. I also ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the ``Ojito Wilderness Act'', a wilderness bill that has broad support in New Mexico. This bill designates the State's fourth Bureau of Land Management Wilderness area, and its first new wilderness area in more than 15 years. Keeping in mind Theodore Roosevelt's statement that ``there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm,'' the Ojito can be described as nearly 11,000 acres of dramatic landforms and multi-colored rock formations, with sculptured badlands, expansive plateaus and mesa tops, a high density of cultural and archaeological sites and paleontological resources, and a diverse array of plant and animal species. It is an area that is big enough to get lost in, but small enough that it will not change the fact that only one percent of New Mexico's BLM lands are designated as wilderness. The bill also provides for the acquisition of some adjacent public lands by the Pueblo of Zia for preservation as public open space. I am pleased that the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, is cosponsoring this bill and that my distinguished colleague from the Third District of New Mexico, Representative Udall, is introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives. The support for this proposal truly is impressive. It has been formally endorsed by the Governor of New Mexico; the local Sandoval County Commission and the neighboring Bernalillo County Commission; the Albuquerque City Council; New Mexico House of Representatives Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman James Roger Madalena; the Governors of the Pueblos of Zia, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Cochiti, Tesuque, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambe, Santa Clara, San Juan, Sandia, Laguna, Acoma, Isleta, Picuris, and Taos; the National Congress of American Indians; the Hopi Tribe; The Wilderness Society; the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness, on behalf of more than 375 businesses and organizations; the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club; the National Parks and Conservation Association; the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau; 1000 Friends of New Mexico; and numerous individuals. The designation of the Ojito Wilderness was recommended by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr,.--a former New Mexico Congressman of 20 years--in 1991. Secretary Lujan found the Ojito to have ``high quality wilderness values'' with ``outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation,'' as well as ``outstanding photographic and sightseeing opportunities.'' The ``close proximity to the Albuquerque and Santa Fe population centers, cultural and paleontological special features, and the lack of resource conflicts'' made the recommendation particularly strong. President George H.W. Bush concurred in the recommendation and forwarded it to Congress for designation. This bill adopts the boundaries recommended at that time, so there should be no question or dispute that all of the lands proposed for wilderness in this bill fully qualify for wilderness status under the Wilderness Act. This bill also takes advantage of a unique opportunity to benefit both the Pueblo and the public by authorizing the Pueblo to acquire some public lands that are sandwiched between the Zia Reservation and the Ojito Wilderness Study Area. The general public will benefit from the assurance that these lands will be protected for the future, forming a protective buffer around the Ojito Wilderness and providing additional opportunities for primitive public recreation. This bill secures continued public access to this open space for recreational, scenic, paleontological, scientific, educational, and conservation uses. While these lands are--and will remain--important to the public, they have special importance to the Pueblo and its people. These lands are part of the Pueblo's aboriginal land base, and they harbor many cultural, religious, historical, and archaeological sites of great import to the Pueblo. By acquiring these lands, the Pueblo will finally unite the two non-contiguous parts of its Reservation. The Pueblo may continue to graze its cattle on these lands, but it is prohibited from using the lands for housing, gaming, mining, or other commercial enterprises. The Pueblo will purchase these lands for fair market value, which will, of course, take into consideration the restrictions and prohibitions on various uses, the requirement that the natural characteristics of the land be preserved in perpetuity, and the guarantee that public access be maintained. Existing rights are protected, so, for example, the main access road will remain a county road and the existing pipelines and transmission line will be unaffected. The Pueblo also has agreed to recognize the grazing privileges of a neighboring ranch that has the only other outstanding grazing permit on the lands to be transferred, and it is working on memorializing that agreement. The New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick H. Lyons, supports this transfer. In a letter endorsing the proposal, he told the Pueblo that it ``makes sense from a management perspective, and I applaud your efforts to address this matter in a cooperative manner. Once transferred, I am confident that the Pueblo of Zia will manage its acquisition with the same sensitivity with which it manages all its lands.'' I agree, and this bill authorizes the Pueblo to manage this land pursuant to regulations that are approved by the Secretary of the Interior. I am particularly pleased to introduce this legislation in celebration of the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the eightieth anniversary of the Nation's first administratively-designated wilderness. This celebration is particularly meaningful to my State of New Mexico, for it is both the proud birthplace of wilderness and the home to two of its fathers: Aldo Leopold, who worked from Albuquerque for 15 years to create in 1924 the Gila wilderness near my home in southern New Mexico, and New Mexico Senator Clinton Anderson, who was instrumental in codifying Aldo Leopold's wilderness and ethic 40 years later. Forty years later still, the Ojito provides a unique wilderness area that is important not only to its local stewards, but also to the nearby residents of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as visitors from across the country. It is an outdoor geology laboratory, offering a spectacular and unique opportunity to view from a single location the juxtaposition of the southwestern margin of the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado Plateau, and the Rio Grande Rift, along with the volcanic necks of the Rio Puerco Fault. Its rugged terrain offers a rewarding challenge to hikers, backpackers, and photographers. It shelters ancient Puebloan ruins and an endemic endangered plant, solitude and inspiration. The words of Aldo Leopold and Senator Clinton Anderson are fitting for the Ojito, for it is ``what the land was, what it is, and what it ought to be''; let this ``Ojito Wilderness Act'' be ``a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say this we will leave as we found it.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce the ``Ojito Wilderness Act'', a wilderness bill that has broad support in New Mexico. This bill designates the State's fourth Bureau of Land Management Wilderness area, and its first new wilderness area in more than 15 years. Keeping in mind Theodore Roosevelt's statement that ``there are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness, that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy, and its charm,'' the Ojito can be described as nearly 11,000 acres of dramatic landforms and multi-colored rock formations, with sculptured badlands, expansive plateaus and mesa tops, a high density of cultural and archaeological sites and paleontological resources, and a diverse array of plant and animal species. It is an area that is big enough to get lost in, but small enough that it will not change the fact that only one percent of New Mexico's BLM lands are designated as wilderness. The bill also provides for the acquisition of some adjacent public lands by the Pueblo of Zia for preservation as public open space. I am pleased that the senior Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, is cosponsoring this bill and that my distinguished colleague from the Third District of New Mexico, Representative Udall, is introducing a companion measure in the House of Representatives. The support for this proposal truly is impressive. It has been formally endorsed by the Governor of New Mexico; the local Sandoval County Commission and the neighboring Bernalillo County Commission; the Albuquerque City Council; New Mexico House of Representatives Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman James Roger Madalena; the Governors of the Pueblos of Zia, Santa Ana, Santo Domingo, Cochiti, Tesuque, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambe, Santa Clara, San Juan, Sandia, Laguna, Acoma, Isleta, Picuris, and Taos; the National Congress of American Indians; the Hopi Tribe; The Wilderness Society; the New Mexico Wilderness Alliance; the Coalition for New Mexico Wilderness, on behalf of more than 375 businesses and organizations; the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club; the National Parks and Conservation Association; the Albuquerque Convention and Visitors Bureau; 1000 Friends of New Mexico; and numerous individuals. The designation of the Ojito Wilderness was recommended by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, Jr,.--a former New Mexico Congressman of 20 years--in 1991. Secretary Lujan found the Ojito to have ``high quality wilderness values'' with ``outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation,'' as well as ``outstanding photographic and sightseeing opportunities.'' The ``close proximity to the Albuquerque and Santa Fe population centers, cultural and paleontological special features, and the lack of resource conflicts'' made the recommendation particularly strong. President George H.W. Bush concurred in the recommendation and forwarded it to Congress for designation. This bill adopts the boundaries recommended at that time, so there should be no question or dispute that all of the lands proposed for wilderness in this bill fully qualify for wilderness status under the Wilderness Act. This bill also takes advantage of a unique opportunity to benefit both the Pueblo and the public by authorizing the Pueblo to acquire some public lands that are sandwiched between the Zia Reservation and the Ojito Wilderness Study Area. The general public will benefit from the assurance that these lands will be protected for the future, forming a protective buffer around the Ojito Wilderness and providing additional opportunities for primitive public recreation. This bill secures continued public access to this open space for recreational, scenic, paleontological, scientific, educational, and conservation uses. While these lands are--and will remain--important to the public, they have special importance to the Pueblo and its people. These lands are part of the Pueblo's aboriginal land base, and they harbor many cultural, religious, historical, and archaeological sites of great import to the Pueblo. By acquiring these lands, the Pueblo will finally unite the two non-contiguous parts of its Reservation. The Pueblo may continue to graze its cattle on these lands, but it is prohibited from using the lands for housing, gaming, mining, or other commercial enterprises. The Pueblo will purchase these lands for fair market value, which will, of course, take into consideration the restrictions and prohibitions on various uses, the requirement that the natural characteristics of the land be preserved in perpetuity, and the guarantee that public access be maintained. Existing rights are protected, so, for example, the main access road will remain a county road and the existing pipelines and transmission line will be unaffected. The Pueblo also has agreed to recognize the grazing privileges of a neighboring ranch that has the only other outstanding grazing permit on the lands to be transferred, and it is working on memorializing that agreement. The New Mexico Commissioner of Public Lands, Patrick H. Lyons, supports this transfer. In a letter endorsing the proposal, he told the Pueblo that it ``makes sense from a management perspective, and I applaud your efforts to address this matter in a cooperative manner. Once transferred, I am confident that the Pueblo of Zia will manage its acquisition with the same sensitivity with which it manages all its lands.'' I agree, and this bill authorizes the Pueblo to manage this land pursuant to regulations that are approved by the Secretary of the Interior. I am particularly pleased to introduce this legislation in celebration of the upcoming 40th anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 and the eightieth anniversary of the Nation's first administratively-designated wilderness. This celebration is particularly meaningful to my State of New Mexico, for it is both the proud birthplace of wilderness and the home to two of its fathers: Aldo Leopold, who worked from Albuquerque for 15 years to create in 1924 the Gila wilderness near my home in southern New Mexico, and New Mexico Senator Clinton Anderson, who was instrumental in codifying Aldo Leopold's wilderness and ethic 40 years later. Forty years later still, the Ojito provides a unique wilderness area that is important not only to its local stewards, but also to the nearby residents of Albuquerque and Santa Fe, as well as visitors from across the country. It is an outdoor geology laboratory, offering a spectacular and unique opportunity to view from a single location the juxtaposition of the southwestern margin of the Rocky Mountains, the Colorado Plateau, and the Rio Grande Rift, along with the volcanic necks of the Rio Puerco Fault. Its rugged terrain offers a rewarding challenge to hikers, backpackers, and photographers. It shelters ancient Puebloan ruins and an endemic endangered plant, solitude and inspiration. The words of Aldo Leopold and Senator Clinton Anderson are fitting for the Ojito, for it is ``what the land was, what it is, and what it ought to be''; let this ``Ojito Wilderness Act'' be ``a demonstration by our people that we can put aside a portion of this which we have as a tribute to the Maker and say this we will leave as we found it.'' I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank the distinguished chairman for his consideration and his work on this important matter. I look forward to continue working with him as the Interior appropriations bill goes to conference. e85 infrastructure

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I appreciate the broad support we are receiving for the amendment, and I hope all Senators will vote in favor. I yield the floor.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself the first 3 minutes of my 5 minutes.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, amendment No. 1740 is straightforward. It would prohibit the Secretary of the Interior, working through the Park Service, from issuing any permit allowing a special event on The National Mall unless the permit expressly prohibited the use of structures or signs bearing commercial advertising. The amendment does provide that there can be sponsor recognition of special events, but it makes clear we intend to have the Park Service interpret that in a way that is consistent with the special nature of The National Mall. We would also require that the lettering or design that identifies the sponsor not be more than a third the size of the lettering identifying what the special event is. I have shown this photograph before. I will show it again so people have an idea of what prompted my amendment. This is a special event that the Park Service approved and issued a permit for a couple of weeks ago on The National Mall. This event was a football and music festival entitled ``NFL Kick-off Live From The National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla''. This photograph is from the Washington Post. This is an enlarged photograph that was in the Washington Post. You can see that there are a whole series of banners up and down The Mall. There is one for Verizon, and this one is for Pepsi Vanilla, and here is a giant football with NFL signs on it. It seemed clear to me that this was commercial advertising any way you look at it. The Park Service, unfortunately, takes the position that this was entirely appropriate. No commercial advertising here. This is sponsor recognition. We were giving some recognition to those that were underwriting this important event for a public purpose. You may say, what was the public purpose? Well, it was to take pride in America--you can find that phrase way down here--and this is the idea that there is voluntarism, and that was the reason we opened this up with the NFL. It gave them a permit for 17 days, during which time they could block off The Mall, prepare for the festival, have the festival, and break down the equipment after the festival and so on. I will show the other photograph. This is another photograph that shows the fence that was put around The Mall, with advertisements for AOL, Pepsi Vanilla, Coors, and Verizon. This, of course, was blocking access to The Mall for the public. If you wanted to walk or jog on The Mall, or do anything else, you were prohibited from doing so during this period. We need to clarify what the law is. My amendment will do that. It says we don't want commercial advertisement on The Mall. I always thought that was the policy, and, up until now, I think it has generally been the policy. But it is clearly not recognized that way by the current Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Park Service. We need to clarify that. I hope my colleagues will support the amendment. It puts into law a prohibition of commercial advertising on The National Mall for the first time. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, let me first thank Senator Thomas and Senator Burns for their support and, of course, Senator Dorgan, who is a cosponsor. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Akaka, who is the ranking member on the National Parks Subcommittee in our Energy and Natural Resources Committee, be added as a cosponsor to the amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I have filed an amendment to S. 1391 that would allocate $950,000 from the United States Geological Survey's, USGS, Ground-Water Resources Program to initiate a United States-Mexico binational groundwater study of transboundary aquifers. The parameters of this study have been developed by the USGS in cooperation with the Water Resources Research Institutes in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, and other interested parties. It is very important that the USGS receive funding to implement its plan. During the past decade, the United States-Mexico border region experienced significant economic expansion that was accompanied by rapid population growth and urban development. It is now anticipated that water quantity and water quality will most likely be the limiting factors that ultimately control future economic development, population growth, and human health in the border region. The binational program funded by this request will be a scientific partnership between the USGS, the border states, and several key Universities in the region. It will systematically assess priority transboundary aquifers, and will provide a scientific foundation and create sophisticated tools for State and local water resource managers to address the challenges facing them in the border region. I have discussed the need for this amendment with the distinguished chairman, and he has been very helpful in discussing various options to secure funding to initiate this study. The President's budget requested $1.0 million for USGS to begin work on a closely related United States- Mexico Border Human Health Initiative. The House of Representatives has provided the full amount in its version of the Interior appropriations bill, but the Senate has only been able to provide $500,000 for this effort. In conference, I have requested that the chairman agree to the higher amount that the House has provided for the Border health initiative but to direct the USGS to use the additional $500,000 to begin the binational groundwater study. I believe this work will address the critical need I just described while also providing valuable data and information that is consistent with the border health initiative.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading the full amendment. I wanted her to read it so all Members would know what the subject of the amendment was and also the substance of it. This amendment would prohibit the National Park Service from issuing any permit for a special event on the National Mall unless the permit expressly prohibits the use of commercial advertising. Last week, I spoke at length about my concern with a particular special event that took place on The Mall earlier this month. This event was described by the Department of Interior as a football and musical festival entitled--and this whole thing is the title of the event--the ``NFL Kickoff Live from the National Mall Presented by Pepsi Vanilla.'' The Mall is often used for large public gatherings. We are all familiar with the Smithsonian Folklife Festival during the Fourth of July celebration and the Cherry Blossom Festival in the spring. The National Mall is also, of course, one of the most significant, if not the most significant, sites for public demonstrations in our Nation. As Judge Buckley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia wrote: It is here [on the National Mall] that the constitutional right of speech and peaceful assembly find their fullest expression. The management of The Mall is entrusted to the Department of the Interior. More specifically, it is entrusted to the National Park Service. The Park Service's own regulations and guidelines make clear that The Mall is not intended to be used for commercial purposes. The Park Service guidelines state: The theme of the special event must be consistent with the mission of the park area in which it is to be held, including consideration of possible damage and/or impairment to park property and . . . values. In my view, with respect to the recent event I have described, for whatever reason, the Park Service decided to effectively ignore its own policy. Let me show a couple of photographs to make the point. I showed these a week or so ago on the Senate floor. They fairly graphically point out the problem I am trying to have addressed. This is a photograph that appeared in the Washington Post. It is a photograph down The Mall. You can see the Capitol Building in the distance. You can see the various banners which were essentially just commercial advertising banners for Pepsi Vanilla. And then down at the bottom, it does say, ``Take Pride in America.'' But the main thrust of the banner, I suggest, to any unbiased observer is that it is an ad for Pepsi Vanilla. Obviously, this very large football is intended to advertise the National Football League which we all support, but clearly, what we see here in this photo is commercial activity being conducted on The Mall. Let me show another event to make the point even further. This is a photograph related to the same event. It shows a large fence put up around a large portion of The Mall. It contains what are clearly advertisements for various companies: AOL for broadband, Pepsi Vanilla, Verizon, Coors Light. According to our Secretary of the Interior and to the Director of the National Park Service, these are not advertisements. Instead, in their view, these constitute sponsor recognition. Frankly, this is a distinction of which I was not aware. The Department of the Interior and the Park Service continue to insist that this event, about which I have complained in the way it was conducted, was entirely appropriate, that the banners and the signs were just sponsor recognition. The Secretary of the Interior and the head of the Park Service are, of course, by law the two public officials appointed by the President and charged with the responsibility of protecting The Mall and ensuring that the uses of The Mall be appropriate. These photos clearly represent their view of what is appropriate use of The Mall. I strongly disagree. Let me explain specifically what it is that I am opposed to. The Interior Department claims that the purpose of the event in this case was to express support for the Department's ``Take Pride in America'' slogan, encouraging people to volunteer for projects on public lands and to honor members of the Armed Forces. Obviously, all of us, all Americans favor these good purposes. But the stated rationale for approving the event is not consistent with what was taking place on The Mall. In my opinion, the Interior Department and the National Park Service allowed a large portion of The Mall to be virtually closed to public use for several days to allow essentially for a commercial event. When I say ``for several days,'' the permit allowed the sponsor of this event 17 days in which to organize and set up the extravaganza, conduct the event, and then remove the various items put there as part of it. But this was essentially a commercial event. It featured commercial advertising by private corporations. The event was used as the basis for a commercial television production. The commercials featuring event sponsors were broadcast over large-screen televisions set up in The Mall. Those commercial uses and commercial advertising were not an appropriate use of The Mall. I also believe it is not appropriate to close a large portion of The Mall for a commercially related purpose for long periods of time to the exclusion of the general public. I received a letter last week from the Director of the National Park Service. She wrote to express her concern that if sponsor recognition were prohibited on The Mall, many special events that had been approved in the past would not be able to take place in the future. Frankly, I would have felt better had she also indicated in the letter some concern for the need to protect The Mall and to protect the public right to access to The Mall comparable to the level of interest that she demonstrated for corporate sponsors. But I do agree with the main point she was making, that most of these special events, many of which involve races or walks or various charitable causes, do not infringe on the public's ability to use The Mall. Most are not inherently commercial. The amendment I am offering would allow the National Park Service to provide for limited sponsor recognition. It would require that the size and form of the recognition be consistent with the special nature and sanctity of The Mall, which is identical to the language we approved in the Senate earlier this year with respect to the proposed education center near the Vietnam Memorial on The Mall. It also would limit the size of any sponsor recognition to one-third the size of the lettering or design that is put there to name the special event. As the photos indicate, during the last event, that was essentially reversed. The sponsors' names were given by far the greatest visibility. Finally, the amendment directs that the Secretary, to the maximum extent possible, ensure that public use of The Mall and access not be restricted in leading up to or during or following these special events. I do not believe in trying to micromanage agency management decisions through legislation. With respect to this amendment, we have tried to give the Park Service flexibility to determine what is an appropriate means to recognize event sponsors, while making it clear that at least the Congress believes commercial advertising should not be permitted. Department of the Interior and National Park Service officials have not shown the judgment necessary to protect the public's interest under the authority they currently have. Instead, they have bent over backwards to accommodate commercial interests that wanted to use The Mall for commercial purposes. While it is impossible to legislate common sense and good judgment, I believe the amendment would at least make clear that The Mall, which the Park Service itself has described as ``the single most significant public park and open space in our Nation's Capital,'' should not be a venue for commercial use and for advertising. I believe this is an entirely reasonable amendment. It is one I am offering on behalf of myself and Senators Dorgan and Reid of Nevada. I hope it can gain unanimous support and that by adopting it we can send a strong message that we believe The Mall's special place in our national heritage needs to be preserved. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, the manager of the bill, for his courtesy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily and I be allowed to offer another amendment.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, we yield back our time.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the chairman yield for a question?

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for taking the time to discuss this matter with me.

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, will the chairman agree that as section 310 undergoes conference with the House and the language is considered that it is consistent with the ongoing study by the National Academy?

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Assessment Act of 2003. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the full-scale implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System takes place after there has been ample opportunity for expert and public commentary on the assessment, Congressional oversight hearings have been held, and the National Academies have completed a study of this issue to ensure that the assessment is reliable and appropriate. Currently, children in Head Start are assessed 3 times a year on all of the domains of early learning and development, including literacy and math. The National Reporting System (NRS) is an assessment developed by HHS, which would create an additional test for all 4-year olds in Head Start, roughly \1/2\ million children, on literacy and math skills only. Children would be assessed twice a year and according to Administration documents, changes over time in children's scores would be used to judge the success of individual Head Start programs. The new testing program is expected to cost about $20 million each year. Some pilot testing was begun in April and May of 2003 and HHS expects to begin full implementation of the NRS this fall. The purpose of the bill that I am introducing today is not to undermine this assessment, or to oppose assessment, but to make sure that it is done correctly. As you know, I have a long history of supporting accountability for educational programs. Assessments are important tools for accountability. They can be used to benefit teachers and students and to raise the bar for all educational programs. That being said, a good assessment takes time to develop and the measures and procedures that are used must be thoroughly debated and discussed. I have grave concerns about the speed with which the NRS was developed as well as with the opacity of the process by which HHS has proceeded to date. Assessing young children is notoriously difficult. They are not used to taking tests and often do not have the emotional maturity to sit still and focus on the task at hand. Their test scores tend to fluctuate across time and can reflect many factors unrelated to their skills. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers'' made it clear that more research on assessing young children is needed before such assessments should be used for accountability purposes. Because of this, it is crucial that the assessment instruments to be used in the NRS are properly validated and deemed to be appropriate for 4-year old children. At this point, we have little information about exactly what those instruments are and HHS has not made available the results of pilot tests or the comments made by experts on the content of the assessment. To my mind, the speed with which this assessment was rolled out makes it unlikely that the measures have been properly developed and tested. It has also become clear that the assessment targets only a few of the skills that Head Start seeks to instill in children. For example, social skills are not being assessed and it is clear that without them, children are simply not ready to learn. It is also very important that sufficient time be taken to insure that English language learners are not put at a disadvantage by being given a test that is not appropriate for them. The test is in English and Spanish, and yet many Head Start children speak Asian or other languages. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, I have heard from Native American Head Start Directors who are concerned that the NRS, in its current form, is not appropriate for their students, who often do not speak English in the home. We should take the time to insure that the assessment tool that is ultimately used is valid and reliable, assesses the gamut of skills that children acquire in Head Start, and is appropriate for children from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. It is also crucial that throughout the process of developing these instruments, there is ample consultation both with the public and with experts in early childhood development and research methodology. The results of these consultations and decisions regarding the NRS should be made public. Although HHS claims that they have had many meetings with ``experts'', there is little or no information publicly available that clarifies what went on at these meetings, what decisions were reached, and whether the advice of the experts was or was not heeded in developing the NRS. To date, there has been no Congressional oversight or public task force convened. Development of an assessment tool as important as this one should not occur behind closed doors. Congress and the public have a right to participate in and comment on this process. My bill would help to insure that the NRS is developed in the proper fashion. The Secretary of HHS would be required to halt the full-scale implementation of the NRS until such time as Congressional oversight hearings have been held, the Secretary has concluded public forums on this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study using a panel of nationally recognized experts in early childhood assessment, child development, and education. The NAS study would provide specific information regarding: a. the skills and competencies that are predictive of school readiness and academic success in young children, b. the development, selection, and use of instruments to assess literacy, mathematical, emotional and social skills as well as health and physical well-being young children, c. the proper use of early childhood assessments to improve Head Start programs and d. the steps needed to ensure that assessments take into account the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of Head Start students, among other things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Head Start is the flagship educational program for low-income children. Studies clearly show that children who attend Head Start programs show gains in their cognitive and social skills, but we also know that more can and should be done for this vulnerable population. Assessments can be an important means to insure that quality is maintained in each Head Start program, but poorly developed or implemented assessments can do more harm than good. Let's take our time, consult with the experts and the public, and come up with a National Reporting System that we can all be proud of. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. BINGAMAN

Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Head Start Assessment Act of 2003. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that the full-scale implementation of the Head Start National Reporting System takes place after there has been ample opportunity for expert and public commentary on the assessment, Congressional oversight hearings have been held, and the National Academies have completed a study of this issue to ensure that the assessment is reliable and appropriate. Currently, children in Head Start are assessed 3 times a year on all of the domains of early learning and development, including literacy and math. The National Reporting System (NRS) is an assessment developed by HHS, which would create an additional test for all 4-year olds in Head Start, roughly \1/2\ million children, on literacy and math skills only. Children would be assessed twice a year and according to Administration documents, changes over time in children's scores would be used to judge the success of individual Head Start programs. The new testing program is expected to cost about $20 million each year. Some pilot testing was begun in April and May of 2003 and HHS expects to begin full implementation of the NRS this fall. The purpose of the bill that I am introducing today is not to undermine this assessment, or to oppose assessment, but to make sure that it is done correctly. As you know, I have a long history of supporting accountability for educational programs. Assessments are important tools for accountability. They can be used to benefit teachers and students and to raise the bar for all educational programs. That being said, a good assessment takes time to develop and the measures and procedures that are used must be thoroughly debated and discussed. I have grave concerns about the speed with which the NRS was developed as well as with the opacity of the process by which HHS has proceeded to date. Assessing young children is notoriously difficult. They are not used to taking tests and often do not have the emotional maturity to sit still and focus on the task at hand. Their test scores tend to fluctuate across time and can reflect many factors unrelated to their skills. The National Academy of Sciences report, ``Eager to Learn: Educating Our Preschoolers'' made it clear that more research on assessing young children is needed before such assessments should be used for accountability purposes. Because of this, it is crucial that the assessment instruments to be used in the NRS are properly validated and deemed to be appropriate for 4-year old children. At this point, we have little information about exactly what those instruments are and HHS has not made available the results of pilot tests or the comments made by experts on the content of the assessment. To my mind, the speed with which this assessment was rolled out makes it unlikely that the measures have been properly developed and tested. It has also become clear that the assessment targets only a few of the skills that Head Start seeks to instill in children. For example, social skills are not being assessed and it is clear that without them, children are simply not ready to learn. It is also very important that sufficient time be taken to insure that English language learners are not put at a disadvantage by being given a test that is not appropriate for them. The test is in English and Spanish, and yet many Head Start children speak Asian or other languages. In my home State of New Mexico, for example, I have heard from Native American Head Start Directors who are concerned that the NRS, in its current form, is not appropriate for their students, who often do not speak English in the home. We should take the time to insure that the assessment tool that is ultimately used is valid and reliable, assesses the gamut of skills that children acquire in Head Start, and is appropriate for children from a wide variety of cultural backgrounds. It is also crucial that throughout the process of developing these instruments, there is ample consultation both with the public and with experts in early childhood development and research methodology. The results of these consultations and decisions regarding the NRS should be made public. Although HHS claims that they have had many meetings with ``experts'', there is little or no information publicly available that clarifies what went on at these meetings, what decisions were reached, and whether the advice of the experts was or was not heeded in developing the NRS. To date, there has been no Congressional oversight or public task force convened. Development of an assessment tool as important as this one should not occur behind closed doors. Congress and the public have a right to participate in and comment on this process. My bill would help to insure that the NRS is developed in the proper fashion. The Secretary of HHS would be required to halt the full-scale implementation of the NRS until such time as Congressional oversight hearings have been held, the Secretary has concluded public forums on this issue, and the National Academy of Sciences has conducted a study using a panel of nationally recognized experts in early childhood assessment, child development, and education. The NAS study would provide specific information regarding: a. the skills and competencies that are predictive of school readiness and academic success in young children, b. the development, selection, and use of instruments to assess literacy, mathematical, emotional and social skills as well as health and physical well-being young children, c. the proper use of early childhood assessments to improve Head Start programs and d. the steps needed to ensure that assessments take into account the racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity of Head Start students, among other things. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Head Start is the flagship educational program for low-income children. Studies clearly show that children who attend Head Start programs show gains in their cognitive and social skills, but we also know that more can and should be done for this vulnerable population. Assessments can be an important means to insure that quality is maintained in each Head Start program, but poorly developed or implemented assessments can do more harm than good. Let's take our time, consult with the experts and the public, and come up with a National Reporting System that we can all be proud of. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.